AMRIT BANSAL Vs. M.L. GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent had sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. The said petition was allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 21.09.2010. The order passed by the Rent Controller was upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 10.05.2012. Hence, the present petition by the tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on an earlier occasion, ejectment petition was filed by the landlord against the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity and the same was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC'). Hence, the second petition seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity was liable to be dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that earlier ejectment petition was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC which was filed by M.L. Goyal and his wife Saraswati Devi for expansion of their business. However, now the property in question had come to the share of the petitioners in a family settlement. Due to this reason, the second ejectment petition was maintainable. The premises in question was required by the landlord for his personal use as he wanted to expand his business of readymade garments. In fact, the landlord wanted to renovate the entire building and run his business in the same premises. In support of arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.R. Narayan Swamy v. B. Francis Jagan, 2001 2 RCR(Rent) 169 wherein it was held as under:-

(3.) In the present case, respondent-landlord had sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. It was the case of the landlord that he wanted to extend his business. Landlord appeared in the witness box and stated that he required the shop-cum-office in question including the demised premises for his personal use. Respondent further stated that he was running the business of ready made garments in the half portion on the ground-floor of the SCO in question which was insufficient for running his business. He further stated that some of the tenants had already vacated the portion in their occupation and he wanted to renovate the entire building and run his business in the same.