PARSHOTAM LAL Vs. KISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the order of ejectment affirmed by the learned first Appellate Authority, Ferozepur on 23.4.2002 on the ground that the demised premises are required for bona fide use and occupation of the sons of the landlord.

(2.) THE landlord has sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the room in question is being used as a shop of watch repair. The landlord has three major sons out of whom the eldest son Raj Kumar is running a shop of Pan-Bidi along with the landlord in one of shops belonging to him. He is married but residing separately. The second son namely, Virender Kumar is aged about 24 years and has completed his studies about four years back. He is doing his business while sitting at the platform on the roadside, whereas his third son, who is aged 18 years is also working with his brother Virender Kumar. It is pleaded that no other suitable accommodation is available with the landlord to accommodate his grown up unemployed sons, as two of the sons are working on the road-side.

(3.) TO prove his bona fide requirement, the landlord examined himself as AW-3 and produced his son Virender Kumar as AW-4. The landlord also examined AW-1 Basant Ram, who is shop keeper in the same vicinity where the shop in question is situated. On the basis of the statement of the witnesses, it was found that the landlord was not in possession and occupation of any other shop except shop No. 311. In the said shop the landlord is running business alongwith his eldest son. Two of the sons of the landlord aged 25 years and 19 years, are working in Verandah on the roadside and, thus, it was found that the requirement of the sons of the landlord is, in fact, a bona fide requirement and the ejectment order was passed. The said order was affirmed in appeal as well.