M/S. SOOD BROTHERS Vs. GURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein by way of present revision petition has challenged the order dated 1.5.2000 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, ordering eviction of the petitioner from SCF No. 27, Sector 26, Fruit and Vegetable Market, Chandigarh, on the ground of personal necessity. The order passed by the Rent Controller was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.11.2004. The owner landlord of the demised premises claimed eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground of arrears of rent with effect from 1.9.1993 as well as for his own use and occupation i.e. for his own use and his family members. It was claimed that his family consists of himself, wife, two sons and two daugheters-in-law and two small daughters. It was further claimed that both the sons of the respondent-landlord are graduates and daughters-in-law are Post Graduates. The respondent-landlord had retired from service on 31.5.1992 and thereafter shifted to village Mehmoodpur where he owns agricultural land.

(2.) THE case set up by the respondent-landlord was that it was difficult for him to live in the village as there were no better medical facilities. It was claimed that the elder son of the landlord had taken first floor of House No. 2198, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh, on rent at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,100/- and got his minor daughter admitted in the School in Sector 18, Chandigarh. It was also claimed that the landlord along with his wife was residing in the same house where his younger son with his wife was staying in village Mehmoodpur because the accommodation in rented house in Sector 21 was not sufficient to cater to the need of the family. The landlord-respondent further claimed that entire SCF was required for his personal use and occupation because ground floor was to be used by the landlord and his sons to start business of sale of vegetable and fruit for which purpose this was meant, whereas first and second floors would be used for their residence. It was also claimed that the petitioner-tenant has changed the user of the demised premises as he was using the first and second floors for godown purposes without the consent of the landlord. It was also the case of the respondent-landlord that earlier (the tenant) was staying on the first and second floor of the demised premises, but later on shifted to House No. 3229, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh. It was further claimed due to misuser, there is likelihood of resumption of the building by the Estate Officer. It was also claimed that the landlord did not own or occupy any residential or non-residential premises within the urban area of Chandigarh nor he vacated any such premises after the commencement of the Act.

(3.) IT was also the case of the tenant-petitioner that after his retirement, the landlord had settled in his village and his younger son was also staying there. It was further claimed that they were managing their agricultural land. It was also claimed that the demised premises could not be got vacated on the ground of personal requirement. The petitioner-tenant also took a stand that the elder son of the landlord was residing at House No. 2198, Sector 28-C, Chandigarh and he was managing the transport business of his brother-in-law. It was also his case that the said house belongs to the brother-in-law of the son of the landlord. It was further claimed that the accommodation in possession of the son of the landlord was sufficient for the entire family. It was also claimed that the family of the respondent-landlord was engaged in transport business and, therefore, the sons of the landlord had no intention to start the business of vegetables and fruits.