RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. DIWAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.1 had filed ejectment petition against Suraj Bhan (deceased) through his legal representatives with regard to the shop in question on the ground of personal necessity and arrears of rent under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'Act'). Case of respondent No.1, in brief, was that respondent No.1 and his nephew Eric Lal were owners of the property in question. The property in question was let out on rent to Suraj Bhan for running a barber shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 33.50 ps. and house tax @ Rs. 60/- per year. After the death of Suraj Bhan, his legal heirs came in possession of the shop. However, the tenant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2008 along with house tax. Ashok Kumar, son of respondent No.1 was doing a private job at Mohali with a contractor. Now Ashok Kumar had shifted to Kotkapura and wanted to run the business of readymade garments in the shop in question. Petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 7 opposed the petition and pleaded that Ashok Kumar was not doing a private job as alleged. In fact, Ashok Kumar was permanently settled at Mohali for the last about 26/27 years. The shop in question was not required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 01.03.2011 dismissed the ejectment petition. In an appeal filed by respondent No.1, the appellate authority set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller and allowed the appeal and ordered the ejectment of the tenant. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-tenant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Rent Controller had rightly dismissed the ejectment petition filed by respondent No.1. In fact, respondent No.1 did not require the premises for his own personal use. Son of respondent No.1 could not be said to be dependent on Ashok Kumar. Hence, the ground of personal necessity was not available to respondent No.1. Learned counsel has further submitted that Ashok Kumar was settled at Mohali and was running the business of a contractor. The said fact was evident from the income tax returns proved on record which have been filed by Ashok Kumar. The ration card in question had also been got prepared by respondent No.1 with a view to create false evidence.

(3.) In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal, 2002 2 RentLR 1wherein it was held as under:-