SADA RAM ALIAS CHHOTU Vs. GIAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-tenant has filed this revision under Pectin 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the orders of his ejectment dated 10.6.2004 and 23.11.2005 passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority whereby he has been ordered to be ejected from the demised premises, which is a shop, while holding that the demised premises is required by the respondent-landlady for her bona fide necessity to settle the business of her son.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid finding is contrary to the evidence available on record. He contends that in fact, the demised shop is not required at all by the respondent as her son is already running a Muniari Shop at village Tuto Mazara, as stated by RW1 Randhir Singh, RW2 Sada Ram and RW3 Nirmal Singh. Secondly, he submits that during the pendency of the ejectment application, out of three shops owned by the respondent-landlady, which are in occupation of the tenants, one shop has been vacated by one of tenants, which has been subsequently rented out to some other tenant. Therefore, in view of this fact, the personal requirement of the respondent-landlady cannot be said to be bona fide.

(3.) AS far as the second contention raised for the first time before the Appellate Authority is concerned, it has been categorically held by the Appellate Authority that no tenant has vacated any premises. Actually, out of three tenants, one tenant died during the pendency of the instant ejectment application and after his death, his shops have become statutory tenants. The contention of petitioner is that since the respondent-landlady is receiving rent from sons of the deceased tenant, therefore, it is deemed that the said shop was vacated and rented out to other tenant. I do not find any substance in this contention, because tenancy of the non-residential building is also heritable and if the son has inherited the tenancy, it cannot be said that any fresh tenancy has been created after the earlier tenancy. Thus, there is no merit in the instant revision petition. Petition dismissed.