PARAS RAM Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by the tenant against the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, which has been affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 23.1.2004, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be ejected from the demised shop on the ground that the same is required by the landlord for his bona fide use and occupation.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord purchased the demised shop vide registered sale deed dated 9.12.1987. At that time, the petitioner was already in possession of the shop in question as tenant at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month. In the year, 1999, the respondent-landlord filed the instant ejectment application, in which it has been pleaded that the demised premises is required by him to start independent business of Karyana, in which his son is also to be accommodated. It is also pleaded by the respondent-landlord that the shop in question is exclusively owned by him. The petitioner-tenant contested the ejectment application on the ground that the personal requirement of the respondent landlord is not bona fide, he is occupying other residential and non-residential premises and has also got vacated other non-residential building. It has also been pleaded by the petitioner-tenant that the buildings already in possession of the respondent-landlord are sufficient for his use and occupation. The respondent and his brothers Prem Chand, Laxmi Chand and Subhash Chand are joining hands with each other, and the instant ejectment application has been filed in order to put pressure on the petitioner-tenant to increase the rent. The respondent has no experience for doing the business of Karyana nor he is inclined to start such business. Both the Courts below, after considering the evidence led by the parties, ordered ejectment of the petitioner after coming to the conclusion that requirement of the respondent- landlord is bona fide and he has fulfilled all the conditions of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has argued that both the Courts below have committed an error while not taking into consideration the evidence led by the petitioner to the effect that the respondent-landlord is in possession of other non-residential buildings bearing shops No. 64, 67-C and portion of shop No. 67-B, which is an independent unit. He submits that it has been wrongly alleged by the respondent-landlord that his uncles Seth Ram and Ram Gopal are in possession of shop No. 64. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, the respondent-landlord has not fulfilled the mandatory provision of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that there is no evidence on record to prove that the respondent-landlord is actually interested to shift at Ferozepur to start a new business there. His requirement of demised premises is not genuine, but it is a mere wish and on such a wish, the tenant cannot be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity.