GURPREET SINGH AND CO Vs. GURDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners impugn the order of the Rent Controller dated 17.1.2012 and that of the Appellate Authority dated 25.4.2013. The petitioners are the tenants, who have been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises, which are two shops situated at Ludhiana. The petition was initiated by the respondent -landlord on the grounds of non -payment of rent and house tax, impairment of value and utility of the building and personal necessity for setting up his own business in the demised premises. Both the Courts below rejected the plea of the landlord regarding the impairment of the value and utility of the building and the liability of the petitioners to pay house tax. Insofar as the rent was concerned, the same was tendered before the Rent Controller and, thus, this issue was rendered redundant. The plea of personal necessity was, however, accepted.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the findings recorded by the Courts below, has urged that the respondent -landlord had initiated the rent proceedings in a mala fide manner and had not stated the facts correctly before the Court. He has referred to the rent petition where the respondent -landlord had made a categoric averment as a measure of compliance of the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction, Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). But in the evidence, it has come that the respondent was having another premises which he had let out to some other tenant in the year 2007. It is, thus, contended that since the respondent had not approached this Court with clean hands and had also made a wrong assertion, it should be deemed to be a violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i) and, thus, the Courts below ought to have rejected his petition on this ground alone.

(3.) AS far as personal necessity is concerned, it has been contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the need is fabricated as the respondent is a driver on contractual basis based in Chandigarh and the first and second floor of the demised premises are being occupied by his family. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the order of the Appellate Authority is completely justified. He has further stated that the respondent -landlord is now in his advanced years and is no longer in employment. He has further stated that the facts would reveal that the landlord was retired from the Army in the year 1975 and took up the assignment of driver and now he required the premises to lead a more settled life with his family by setting up his business in the demised premises.