JAGJIT SINGH KOHLI Vs. CITY MISSION HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is preferred by the petitionerstenants Jagjit Singh Kohli and another against the judgment dated 10.3.2014 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Patiala vide which ejectment petition of the respondent-landlord for the ejectment of the petitioners-tenants from the demised premises was accepted and the judgment dated 7.1.2015 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala vide which the appeal of the petitioner-tenants preferred against the above said judgment dated 10.3.2014 passed by the learned Rent Controller was dismissed.

(2.) The case of the petitioner (herein respondentlandlord) before the learned Rent Controller in nutshell was as under:-

(3.) On notice, respondents (petitioners herein) appeared. In the reply they denied that petitioner is a charitable hospital being run on 'No profit No loss basis'. It was also denied that Dr. Gurdeep Singh Sahni is the Chairman of the petitioner-trust. It was further plea of the respondents that Smt. Rajinder Kaur is the owner in possession of the property No.265, Mohalla Bibrian, near Mohalla Soodan Wala, Sher-EPunjab Market, Patiala measuring 325 sq. yards. She agreed to sell this property to one Balbir Singh @ Rs.35,000/- per sq. yard vide an agreement to sell dated 11.10.2010. A sum of Rs.10 lacs was paid as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed up to 11.6.2011, which was not executed as the said Smt. Rajinder Kaur had refused to execute the same. It was also denied that the entire ground floor of the above-said building including the demised premises was given to the petitioner previously by S. Gurdeep Singh or that demised premises was rented out to the respondents @ Rs.12,000/- per month or that the respondents had agreed to enhance the rent @ 5% per annum as alleged in the petition. It was further their case that when the demised shop was let out to them it was to be renovated by them at their own costs, since it was not fit for running a show-room and for this purpose the respondents changed the flooring of the entire shop with Granite/vitrified tiles, provided the front gate with toughed glass with an iron shutter, false ceiling was also got erected with modern concealed electrification. Besides this on all the walls wooden paneling work had been got done and furnished it with modern furniture. Further two air conditioners were also got fitted and electric load was also got enhanced and thus the respondents spent about Rs.9 lacs for the above-said entire renovation and up-gradation of the demised shop. It was done with the consent of the landlord and the respondents are entitled to this amount from the petitioner-landlord. It was also denied that demised shop is required by the petitioner for its personal use and occupation. Rather it was pleaded that this petition has been filed just to harass the respondents.