HARPREET SINGH CHAHAL Vs. GOPAL GUPTA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision No.4659 of 2006 is at the instance of the landlord seeking for ejectment of the tenant in respect of the premises occupied by the tenant at the ground floor. The landlord had a case to contend that he was occupying the first floor of a larger portion measuring 66'x16' and yet another portion at the second floor measuring 12'x23'. The ground floor was also necessary for establishing security and computer education for the benefit of the grandson of the first petitioner and the son of the second petitioner.

(2.) The other connected petition in Civil Revision No.6215 of 2008 is with reference to another portion of the ground floor by the very same landlord for eviction of another tenant who was a doctor and the need expressed was the same as made for the petition filed in Civil Revision No.4659 of 2006, referred to above. The Rent Controller directed ejectment and the appellate court also confirmed the same. The tenant is the revision petitioner before this court in Civil Revision No.6215 of 2008.

(3.) Admittedly, the property was granted in lease by the first petitioner, who is the mother of the second petitioner. It was contended that the demised premises at the ground floor was necessary for carrying on with the business which they had already established at the first floor but it was necessary at the ground floor as well as necessary space for carrying on the business and also for the requirement of the son of the second petitioner, who had physical ailment with some impairment beneath his hip and had to be on a wheelchair. The appellate court reversed the decision of the Rent Controller principally on the ground that the landlord already had in his possession a large extent of property at the first floor of dimension of 66'x16' and the ground for eviction made was not really a need but merely a desire. Before the appellate court, it was also contended that there was yet another portion at the second floor which fell vacant but it was let out by the other co-owner Chahal to another person and it would discredit the actual need of the landlord for additional accommodation. It was also brought at the trial that the landlord had actually advertised the property for sale during the pendency of proceedings and this was relied on by the tenant to contend that the landlord could not have had a bona fide requirement for eviction of the premise.