GULSHAN KUMAR JAIN Vs. NEENA JAUHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER (tenant) is in revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the concurrent findings returned by the Authorities below, whereby the ejectment application preferred by the respondents (landlords) on the ground of personal necessity of respondent No. 2 Munish Jauhar has been allowed and the demised premises which is second floor of SCO No. 11, Sector 17 -E, Chandigarh has been ordered to be vacated vide order of learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh dated 01.02.2012 and the findings thereof have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide its judgment dated 03.08.2013. In brief, facts of the case are that the respondents (landlords) have projected the necessity of respondent No. 2 Munish Jauhar on the ground that said Munish Jauhar had done Masters in Computer Application and has established/opened up his own concern on the remaining portion adjoining the demised premises under the name and style of "Grey Cell Technologies Exports". Thus it was stated that the demised premises was required. It has also been averred that due to paucity of accommodation and non vacation of the premises by the petitioner (tenant), respondent No. 2 Munish Jauhar had to take additional accommodation i.e. complete 3rd floor of SCO No. 15, Sector 17 -E, Chandigarh on monthly rent from September 2006. Thus, prayer was made for ejectment of the petitioner (tenant) from the demised premises.

(2.) UPON notice, all the material averments were denied and it was also stated that there is no necessity as alleged by the respondents (landlords) and also that the present premises is not suitable for the purpose of doing business and respondent No. 2 Munish Jauhar can start his business from SCO No. 282, Sector 32, Chandigarh which is also owned by respondents (landlords) and is more suitable for the business of respondent No. 2 Munish Jauhar. Apart from that, it was also averred that many floors of the demised premises have been let out to different tenants at different points of time and thus, the necessity as projected is not proved at all.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file carefully with their able assistance.