AJIT KUMAR Vs. MANJINDER PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is in revision against the order allowing the appeal filed by the tenant. He had obtained an order of eviction before the Rent Controller on a plea that he required the premises for settling his son in his cloth business. The petition for eviction was filed along with yet another petition of another adjacent shop. The property in the hands of the tenant and another tenant which is the subject matter of revision in CR No. 273 of 2010 comprised of dimension of small size, namely 7'-2" x 4'-9" for the tenants in the instant case and 9'-9" x 4'-11" for the tenant which is the subject matter in CR No. 2294 of 2008. The landlord's contention was that the son had been unemployed and since the property was still in the hands of the tenant he had established shop in the passage immediately adjoining the shops in the hands of the tenants in the instant case.

(2.) According to him the property was required for bonafide necessity. The tenant contended that the landlord's son had established the shop which has shutters and of premises larger in dimensions than that of his own shop. The tenant was relying on several documents of orders and receipts from the public authorities like Electricity Board, Commercial Tax office etc. to show that landlord's son was having a cloth business which was even larger in size than his own and only out of the business rivalry and jealousy the landlord was seeking for ejectment of a tenant of a small portion.

(3.) The Rent Controller found the need to be genuine on a reasoning that the shop in the hands of the landlord's son was at the passage and made reference to the rough plan filed along with the petition to assess its location and the evidence given by the father on behalf of the son.