HARMINDER SINGH SEHGAL Vs. TEJINDER PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Tejinder Pal Singh filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act') seeking ejectment of revision petitioner from the premises i.e. Shop No.1 situated at Main Road Dharampura Bazar, Patiala on the ground that the shop is required for personal necessity of the petitioner (respondent herein) and revision petitioner was in arrears of rent. The Rent Controller, Patiala ordered ejectment of the revision petitioner from the shop vide order dated 10.1.2011 on accepting the plea of respondent that the same is required by the petitioner-respondent for his bona-fide personal necessity. The appeal filed by the revision petitioner against the order of the Rent Controller, Patiala was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Patiala, vide judgment dated 17.8.2012. Against the aforesaid order, the revision petitioner has come up with the present revision petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner-respondent, in brief, is that the demised premises was owned by Harnam Kaur, who died on 20.9.2002. The petitioner being the landlord required this shop for use and occupation of his son Gurpreet Singh, who got married on17.11.2003. The income of the petitioner/respondent from his business of sale and purchase of books was not sufficient as such his son wishes to start his own work of sale and purchase of books and stationery mart. His son had no other shop and required the demised premises for his personal use and occupation for running his own business. The revision petitioner was requested to vacate the shop which led to the filing of civil suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The petitioner-respondent also took additional plea seeking ejectment of the revision petitioner that he had not paid rent since September, 2002.

(3.) The revision petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant with petitioner-respondent and also challenged his title over the suit property alleging that it was owned by Harnam Kaur who was married with Budh Singh. Both died issueless. The petitioner/respondent was not the adopted son of Budh Singh and Harnam Kaur. After the death of Harnam Kaur, the petitioner-respondent demanded rent and when the revision petitioner asked for the proof of his being the landlord, he started giving threats which resulted in filing of suit for permanent injunction. The petitioner/respondent had taken the ground floor of the demised premises on rent from Harnam Kaur and started his business of sale of books there. After death of Harnam Kaur, he took forcible possession of the residential house owned by her and started claiming himself to be her adopted son. As Harnam Kaur has left behind no legal heir the property has vested in the State. The rent along with interest and costs as assessed by the Rent Controller, Patiala was tendered in the Court. The ground taken by the petitioner-respondent that the shop in question is required for personal bona-fide necessity of his son was denied, contested and controverted.