RAKESH KUMAR Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the Act') challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the landlord-respondent required the demised premises for his personal use and occupation by opening a shop for sale of seeds and vegetables. The landlord- respondent filed an ejectment petition on various grounds as envisaged by Section 13 of the Act which included the ground of personal necessity by occupying the shop for his own use for setting (settling ?) his two sons and the arrears of rent. The Rent Controller after detailed consideration of evidence has recorded the conclusion that the landlord-respondent along with his sons needed the shops in dispute to run the business of seeds and vegetables. It has further been found that the landlord-respondent is an agriculturist. He has been sowing and selling vegetable crops. It has been proved on record that the landlord-respondent has two sons namely Mohinder, aged 30 years and Harpreet aged 28 years respectively who are unemployed and both the sons wanted to start business of seeds and vegetables in the shops in dispute which are located in commercial as well as residential locality. The residence of the landlord-respondent is on the first floor and the shops on the ground floors have been rented out to the tenant-petitioner. It has also been proved on record that the landlord-respondent has not been occupying any building in the urban area of Patiala except the first floor of the demised premises which is used for residential purposes. It has also been found that he has not vacated any building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act.

(2.) THE argument of the tenant-petitioner that the landlord-respondent is an agriculturist along with his sons and is well settled in business has been rejected by the Courts below holding that the availability of 4-1/2 acres agricultural land would not debar the landlord-respondent from opening the seed and vegetables business in the demised shops. The view of the Appellate Authority on the aforementioned issue reads as under : "It cannot be said that 4-1/2 acres agricultural land would not debar the landlord-respondent from opening the seed and vegetables business in the demised shops. The view of the Appellate authority on the aforementioned issue reads as under :

(3.) MR . D.V. Sharma, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that the necessity of the landlord-respondent cannot be considered to be bona fide as he has sufficient land which is cultivated by him. He is well settled in his agriculture profession. He has maintained that the plea of personal necessity raised by landlord-respondent should be considered as a mere wish. Learned counsel has further argued that for two separate adjoining shops rent @ Rs. 250/- each is fixed which in fact would be two separate tenancies. Accordingly, it has been submitted that two separate ejectment petitions were required to be filed.