CHOBBAR SINGH Vs. DHARAM PAL SINGH GREWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has preferred this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act challenging the order dated August 3, 2013 passed by the Appellate Authority reversing the order passed by the Rent Controller by virtue of which the Rent Controller had dismissed the ejectment application filed by the petitioner, inter -alia on the ground of personal necessity and the impairment.

(2.) RESPONDENT -landlord had sought the ejectment of the petitioner from two shops one in occupation of the petitioner and another in occupation of another tenant measuring approximately 11'7" x 10'10" situated in Sunami Gate Bazar, Patiala, claiming that the respondent required both the shops after having retired from Indian Army as Colonel on April 10, 1996. As he had settled at Patiala, he intended to start his business in the shops in dispute. He had taken Gas Agency from Hind Gas and had become an authorized dealer at Sanaur with the name and style of 'Pinnacle Gas Agency'. The respondent wanted the demised premises to start his petroleum business. He claimed that he controlled and managed Punjab Petroleum Corporation and agency is being managed by him from his residence due to scarcity of vacant shop or commercial places in the area of Patiala for the business purposes. He claimed to have undergone two years petroleum course in military service with adequate knowledge of petroleum product and gases and its allied instruments. He had disclosed in his ejectment petition that the demised premises was part of building bearing MC No. 1337/4 situated in said Sunami Gate Bazar built at one time. The building was 75 to 85 years supported by ballas and on account of its age, the entire building was in bad condition. He wanted the building for reconstruction for setting up business for personal use and occupation. The Rent Controller had dismissed the application on the following grounds: -

(3.) THE Appellate Authority has reversed the finding of the trial Court and held that the respondent bona fide requires the shops.