RAMESH CHANDER Vs. AGGARWAL SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE order being assailed, dated 17.01.2014, rendered by the Rent Controller, Pathankot, eviction of the petitioner had since been ordered on account of personal necessity and as he had even ceased to occupy the demised premises i.e. a shop. Since even an appeal preferred against the said order failed and was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.07.2015, tenant is before this court vide this revision petition.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the case set out in the eviction petition was that respondent -landlord i.e. the Aggarwal Sabha, is a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860 (for short, 'the Act'). And the Sabha had purchased an immoveable property, vide sale deed dated 14.03.1984, and the demised premises was a part thereof. Petitioner was inducted as tenant @ Rs. 130/ - per month about 30 years ago. The premises was let out for running the business of carpentry. The Sabha has been engaged in multiple activities concerning public good. A free dispensary was being run for providing medical facilities to all the needy and poor in the city from a portion of the property owned by the Sabha. Since the accommodation, that was being used to carry out this activity, had become insufficient with efflux of time, the demised premises was required so that it could be amalgamated with the existing accommodation already in occupation of the respondent. Further, the demised premises was lying closed for years, and thus the tenant had ceased to occupy the same.

(3.) ON a due and comprehensive consideration of the matter in issue and the evidence on record both the authorities concurrently concluded that concededly an electric connection was installed in the premises but the evidence brought on record by the respondent, along with other documentary proof of consumption data and statement of bills, showed that the premises remained closed for a period of more than four months without any reasonable cause. Tenant - Ramesh Chander (RW2) had maintained that furniture work was still being carried out in the premises. And one fan, three tube -lights, one cooler and a cutter for cutting the wood were installed in the shop. Every variety of wood was being used by the petitioner to make furniture. However, the records (Ex.A5) proved that consumption of electricity from February 2001 to March 2002 was zero. Only one unit was consumed in May 2002. From July 2002 to March 2003, the consumption of energy was again zero. Only one unit was consumed in May 2003 and then from July 2003 to May 2005, the consumption was again zero. Only three units were consumed in November 2005, but from January 2006 to November 2006 the consumption of energy was again zero. Only 17 units were consumed from January 2007 to June 2008 and from May 2008 to March 2009, the consumption of energy was nil. As the eviction petition was filed on 01.12.2008, and since there was no consumption of electricity continuously for a period of four months, at a stretch, it could not be maintained that any work was being carried out in the premises with the aid of electricity, electric appliances and machinery. As regards personal necessity, it was concluded that the evidence on record proved that the demised premises was indeed required bonafidely by the respondent for its use and occupation. Nothing was brought on record to show that the eviction petition was filed with any ulterior motive to seek the ejectment of the petitioner. Further, no evidence was led to prove that the respondent possessed or occupied any other suitable accommodation to meet its requirement. Moreover, mere existence of a vacant land adjacent to the demised premises and the dispensary, was hardly of any consequence, as landlord was the best judge of his requirement and the tenant could not dictate him to meet his need by utilizing a vacant piece of land. Even otherwise, vacant land adjacent to the premises was not feasible to meet the requirement, for the photograph Ex.A15 on record showed that there were overhead high -tension wires that were hanging over the said land. The position that was fortified from the testimony of Narinder Saini, RW3, who prepared the site plan Ex.R1. Consequently, ejectment of the petitioner was ordered.