SANDEEP JINDAL Vs. AJUDHYA SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the order handed down by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana on 10/1/2019, whereby the Rent Petition, as filed by respondents No.1 to 3-landlords (here-in-after to be referred as 'the landlords') for seeking eviction of the petitioner and proforma-respondent No.4 from the demised premises, had been allowed on the ground that they (landlords) bona-fidely required these premises for their own use and the petitioner and proforma-respondent No.4 had been granted 02 (two) months' time to hand over the physical possession of the above-mentioned premises to the landlords and also by the judgment as passed by learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana on 26/8/2019, qua dismissal of the Appeal moved by the petitioner against the afore-referred eviction order, he (petitioner) has preferred this revision-petition to lay challenge to the same.

(2.) Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts, as emerging from the perusal of the record and culminating in the filing of the present revision-petition, are that the landlords filed the above-said Rent Petition against proforma-respondent No.4 and the petitioner (arrayed as respondents No.1 and 2 respectively, therein) for seeking their eviction from the demised premises on the grounds that proforma-respondent No.4 was in arrears of rent for the period from 16/9/2004 to 15/1/2012 and had also not paid the house-tax w.e.f 1/6/2004 onwards and he had sub-let these premises to the petitioner without their consent and moreover, landlord Gorakh Nath and the sons of landlords Ajudhya Sagar and Ramesh Kumar required the said premises for starting/setting up their business in the same.

(3.) It is pertinent to mention here that proforma-respondent No.4 had chosen to be proceeded against ex-parte before the Rent Controller. However, the petitioner filed his written-statement, contesting the claim of the landlords therein, inter-alia, on the grounds that the demised premises were, initially, rented out to his father who expired in the year 2004 and thereafter, he had been carrying on the business in the afore-said premises and had, regularly, been paying the rent to landlord Gorakh Nath and thus, he was a tenant and the landlords did not require these premises for their own use and rather, in fact, they had filed the Rent Petition as they had been insisting/pressurizing him for increasing the rate of rent exorbitantly but due to the slump in his business, he was not in a position to enhance the same accordingly.