INDERJIT Vs. MAHESH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is in revision petition aggrieved against the ejectment order passed by the Courts below in respect of cabin measuring 5 feet x 8 feet which is part of Booth No. 46, Sector 9, Chandigarh, on the ground that the Booth is required for bona fide use and occupation of the landlord and his son Ashu Gupta.

(2.) AS per the case set up by the respondent, a portion measuring 5 feet x 8 feet with independent entrance, fitted with iron shutter having opening towards east side of Booth No. 46, Sector 9, Chandigarh was let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. The petitioner herein is doing business of watch repairs in the said Booth under the name and style of M/s Deluxe Watch Company. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground that the premises is required for bona fide use and occupation of his family. He has got two grown up sons namely, Ajay Gupta aged 23 years and Ashu Gupta aged 19 years. Both of them are unemployed, unmarried and solely dependent upon their parents and as such, they are to be settled in life. Ajay Gupta, the elder son, would join the business with his mother, who is running her independent business in Booth No. 47, Sector 9, Chandigarh whereas Ashu Gupta, the younger son, would join the business with his father i.e. the Booth in question. The landlord wants to expand his already existing business and also to do some additional business like lamination and gift items for which extra space and accommodation is required. Both the Courts have passed an order of eviction finding that the requirement pleaded is bona fide.

(3.) THE said argument is not tenable for the reason that there is no dispute of identity of the tenanted premises or the tenant therein. Mere wrong description of the name of the tenant will not vitiate the entire proceedings, as admittedly, the present revision petition has been filed by Amarjit Singh, though titled as Inderjit. In the memo of parties itself, the correct name of the petitioner has been described as Amarjit Singh. The petitioner herein (Amarjit Singh) has filed the written statement before the learned Rent Controller and also filed an appeal before the learned Rent Controller and also filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority. Therefore, mere describing the name of a tenant incorrectly will not vitiate the entire proceedings initiated against the tenant.