HARI KRISHAN Vs. ROOP LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dated 29.09.2012, rendered by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, eviction petition filed by the petitioner-landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Rent Act') was dismissed. Appeal preferred against the said order also failed, and, was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.02.2015. This is how, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) Petitioner had sought ejectment of the respondents, on multiple grounds. However, the only ground that was pressed on account of which the eviction of the respondents was prayed was the personal bona fide necessity of the petitioner-landlord. It was maintained that petitioner had two sons namely Gopal Krishan, aged 33 years, who held a diploma in Mechanical Engineering and Krishan Mohan, aged 26 years, who was a graduate. Both were unemployed and un-settled. Petitioner purports to be engaged in a business under the name and style of M/s Capital Machine Fabrics, which was also part of the same property as the demised premises i.e. property bearing No.B.XXI-1016 (old), BXXI-12638 (New), Partap Chowk, Link Road, Ludhiana. But as he required to expand his business to settle his sons and accommodation in his occupation was insufficient, he also required the demised premises.

(3.) In defence, it was pleaded, inter alia, that the accommodation in possession of the petitioner was more than sufficient as he occupied an area measuring 500 sq.yards, where he had set up his business. Whereas, the demised premises was a small shop consisting of an area measuring 35 sq.yards. It was denied that the petitioner actually required the premises for his personal bona fide need.