HARDEV SINGH Vs. SUKHDEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dated 23.04.2014, rendered by Rent Controller, Ludhiana, eviction of the petitioner (tenant) was ordered from the demised premises on account of personal necessity of the respondent (landlord). Appeal preferred against the said order failed and was dismissed vide judgment dated 31.03.2015. This is how, the petitioner-tenant is before this court.

(2.) In an eviction petition, filed by the respondentlandlord, ejectment of the petitioner was sought, as the landlord required the demised premises for his personal use and occupation as also for his son Sham Sundar. It was maintained that son of the landlord was running a business of embroidery and the premises in his possession was insufficient to meet his business requirements. As, landlord was also assisting his son, they both intend to expand their business and, thus, required the shop in question for their bona fide need.

(3.) In defence, it was pleaded, inter alia, that neither the son of the respondent was engaged in any business of embroidery nor the premises in his possession was insufficient to meet his requirement. In fact, Sham Sundar was running a PCO in a shop that too formed a part of the same building. There was yet another shop that was occupied by another tenant, who was carrying business in the name and style of Babbu Dog Shop. Further, the shop that was in occupation of the respondent was re-let to one Raman Kumar and, thus, need of the respondent was not conceived in good faith.