RAM DAS MAHAJAN Vs. BRHAM BHUSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORD Braham Bhushan filed a petition for ejectment of Ram Das tenant from the house in dispute at Chandigarh on the grounds of non-payment of rent and the bonafide need for his own use and occupation. The arrears of rent were duly tendered and accepted on the first date of hearing. So, the only dispute that servives for consideration is as to whether the landlord requires the premises in dispute for his personal use.

(2.) THE case set up in the petition was that the landlord has since retired from the Army and needs the house for the purpose of the education of his children and to set up some business. He further pleaded that he was in occupation of one room, kitchen, bath-room and a lavatory on the first floor of the house in dispute and this accommodation was no sufficient for his requirements.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has attacked the correctness of the impugned order contending that the story of setting up of business at Chandigarh is only a pretext to seek ejectment of the tenant. He further argued that the respondent is carrying on timber business with his father at Badni Kalan and is permanently settled there. The contention of the learned counsel appears to be well-merited. Admittedly, the landlord came to Chandigarh and stayed for 3/4 months on the first floor. No evidence has been brought on the record if he explored any ground for setting up his business inChandigarh during this period. Even in his statement in Court now he has not disclosed as to what business he wants to set up at Chandigarh or he had made any exploration in this regard. Mere ipso dexit of the landlord that he wants to set up business cannot be accepted unless some other circumstances are brought on the record to show his bonafide. The story of setting up of a business is nothing but a pretext to seek ejectment of the tenant. It the landlord was really serious to set up some business at Chandigarh, he would have certainly occupied the accommodation already in his possession and started the business and thereby shown that he positively intended to settle at Chandigarh. There was thus hardly any evidence worth reliance to support the findings of the authorities below.