RAJESH KUMAR Vs. KAMALJIT KAUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ejectment of the petitioner-tenant was ordered by the Rent Controller, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 21.08.2010. As even the appeal preferred against the said order failed, and, was dismissed vide judgement dated 29.08.2015, the tenant is before this Court, vide this revision petition.

(2.) Briefly, eviction of the petitioner was sought on two grounds i.e.personal bona fide need of respondent No.1-landlord, as also, since petitioner-Rajesh Kumar had sub let the demised premises, in favour of Subash Anand-respondent No.2. It was maintained that respondent No.1-landlord required the premises for use and occupation of her sons. Her son namely Prabhdeep Singh, aged 24 years, had graduated in Information and Technology, in the year 2004, and, was unemployed. Likewise, even the other son namely Amardeep Singh, aged 22 years, who had passed 10+2 examination, was also jobless. Husband of respondent No.1 -landlord namely Ajit Singh had retired as Excise and Taxation Officer on 31.01.2006. In fact, respondent No.1 owned four shops, including the demised premises, that were adjacent to each other. Sons of respondent No.1 being unemployed, intended to start a computer centre cum cyber cafe by getting all the shops vacated and removing the intervening walls. Ejectment applications for vacation of the other tenants had also been filed. Husband of respondent No.1, having retired, also intended to assist his sons in managing their proposed business venture. As regards subletting, it was pleaded that petitioner had put respondent No.2-Subash Anand in possession of the demised premises without any written consent of respondent No.1. In fact, petitioner-tenant was running a readymade garments business in a shop in main bazaar, Gurdaspur, in the name and style Handa Garments and was also operating two STD PCOs from the same premises.

(3.) In defence, it was pleaded, inter alia, that the eviction petition preferred by respondent No.1-landlord was not maintainable, being barred under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, as husband of respondent No.1-landlord had withdrawn an earlier ejectment application, inter se the parties, without any permission to file a fresh petition. The petitioner was engaged in the business of electrical goods and their repairs, and the same was being conducted from the premises itself, in the name and style Handa Electrical Works. It was denied that he was running any business of readymade garments in the main bazaar as the said business was being conducted by his wife.