RAMESH CHANDER Vs. NAVEEN GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the tenant and is directed against the ejectment order dated 10.09.2013 passed by the Rent Controller, Jagadhri and which has been further upheld in appeal by the Appellate Authority on 07.11.2014.

(2.) The respondent-landlord filed the application for ejectment of the present petitioner from the shop bearing No. 32 which is part of building bearing House Tax Assessment No. C-3/131 situated at Mohan Market, Buria Gate, Jagadhri, Opposite Cremation Ground. The case of the respondent was that he had retired from the Indian Air Force and purchased the shop vide sale deed dated 18.11.2005. The present petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against him that he was a tenant and had also got an injunction whereby, he had been restrained in interfering in the actual and physical possession of the tenant. Ejectment was sought on the grounds of non-payment of rent from 18.11.2005 to 17.10.2008 and the fact that he had retired from Indian Air Force and wanted to start his own business. It was also pleaded that he had met with an accident and his right arm had been amputated and he required the shop in question to run the electrical business as he is retired personnel from Indian Air Force and he had sufficient experience and could run and manage the said business in the shop. It was specifically pleaded that he was not occupying any other similarly situated building in the urban area of Municipality of Jagadhri and has not vacated any other similarly situated building without any sufficient cause within the local limits of Jagadhari Municipality. He had to maintain his wife and two children who were studying and required the shop to start business.

(3.) The ejectment was opposed on the ground of the conduct of the landlord as such that he had purchased the property and, therefore, tried to interfere in the possession of the respondent forcibly, personally and through his agents and suit for permanent injunction had been filed whereby, injunction had been granted and he had also criminally trespassed in the suit property. The landlord had taken undue advantage of being an Ex-serviceman by putting pressure through higher authorities and thereafter, the present petition was filed on the ground of personal necessity. The ground to run business in the disputed property is just an excuse and to take possession of his property, he was taking advantage of being an ex serviceman and his handicap. The rent had been offered and there were no arrears and rather excess amount was there. The petitioner was already in occupation of a shop on the first floor of the building and, therefore, he did not require the property in question. The Rent Controller framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:-