DEWAN CHAND PURI Vs. GURCHET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-landlord filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises seeking his eviction on the ground that the tenant had neither paid nor tendered rent w.e.f. May, 1990; that the tenant had made alterations in the demised and that the landlord requires the premises for personal use and occupation. The tenant upon notice disputed the claim of the landlord.

(2.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the landlord in para 3(iii) of the ejectment petition has only pleaded that he required the disputed shop for his personal use and occupation and that he has two sons and his elder son is about to complete his education who wanted to join the business which he is running in the yellow portion of the property. It has also been pleaded that the landlord is running his workshop in the yellow portion of this property which is most insufficient for running the workshop and the landlord wants to expand his business which can only be possible if the disputed shop is vacated. According to the counsel, the landlord has examined Gurbax Singh as AW-1 and himself appeared as AW-2 to prove the above averments. He submitted that Gurbax Singh AW-1 during his cross-examination admitted that abutting the suit property, there is one wide lane and the landlord is having his opening of workshop in that lane. The landlord used the gate for entry of vehicles for washing and used to bring out the vehicles from the gate only. The witness had further stated in his cross-examination that the wall shown towards the street of service station has full gate and that hydraulic lift to lift the vehicles was installed at point'A' in plan Ex. A-1. The landlord while appearing as AW-2 had stated in his evidence that he had filed ejectment petition against both his tenants and if both the shops are vacated, one out of the two can be used for spare parts and accessories and he had also admitted during his cross-examination that he is running his service station as well as repair shop in portion mark A-1 and A-2 shown in the site plan Ex. R-1 right from the very beginning. On the above premises, the counsel submitted that the landlord had filed the petition for ejectment as he wanted to expand his business of service station and while appearing as AW-2, he had stated that if these shops are vacated, one out of the two can be used for spare parts and accessories. This according to the learned counsel is beyond the pleadings and, thus, no evidence could have been adverted or looked into in this respect.