O.P. BULANI Vs. VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is of the petitioner-herein (tenant) against the order dated 24.03.2014 passed by learned Rent Controller, Amritsar vide which application filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act III of 1949 (in short the Act) for the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises was accepted with costs and the judgment dated 06.02.2015 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar vide which appeal preferred by the tenant against the aforesaid order of learned Rent Controller was dismissed with costs.

(2.) The case of the respondent-herein (landlord) before learned Rent Controller in brief was that firm M/s Bhool Chand Bhagat Ram through Kishan Dass Bhulani was inducted as tenant in the first floor along with inter-floors of building bearing No.259/1-2, situated at Katra Kanahaya, Amritsar shown as red in the site plan annexed with application (hereinafter referred as demised premises) by Kanshi Ram at the rate of Rs. 210/- per month. The present rent of the demised premises is stated to be Rs. 500/- per month. The terms of the tenancy were reduced into writing vide rent note dated 15.02.1968. Kanshi Ram was the grandfather of the present respondent-herein (landlord) and after his death, he (respondent-herein) became landlord of the demised premises. The abovesaid Kishan Dass also surrendered his tenancy rights with the consent of the applicant in favour of O.P. Bhulani, i.e. petitioner-herein (tenant). The ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f. January, 2007 and for personal necessity. It was the case of the respondent-herein (landlord) that he bona fidely required the demised premises for the residential use of his son namely Vinay Aggarwal. He has two sons namely Vinay Aggarwal and Nitin Aggarwal, who both are married having their children and they all are residing together at 27, Green Avenue, Amritsar. Now there arose a dispute between both of his sons and their families and it was not possible for them to live together under one and same roof, which resulted into filing of instant application

(3.) Notice of application was given to the respondent, who in his written statement took preliminary objections that this petition was not maintainable and that it had been filed with mala fide intention to seek ejectment of the tenant from demised premises and to let out the same at higher rent. The arrears of rent upto March, 2007 had already been paid. Then he had given a cheque in the sum of Rs. 6,000/- as subsequent rent for one year which the landlord did not present with an ulterior motive to make out a ground for non-payment of rent.