PARAMJIT SINGH ETC. Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 12.12.2005 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Nabha and the order dated 26.4.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority, Patiala vide which a petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as, 'the Act') by the respondent-landlord was allowed and the petitioner-tenants were ordered to be evicted and a first appeal filed against the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority found in favour of the respondent-landlord on the ground of bonafide personal necessity.

(2.) The relevant facts as emerge from a reading of the orders of the Courts below and the pleadings of the parties are that the shop in dispute was let out to Mohan Lal father of the petitioners over four decades ago. After the death of their father the petitioners have been in possession of the shop in dispute as tenants. The landlord retired from Government Service on 30.11.2001 after serving as a Junior Engineer in the PWD (B&R) Branch. It was his case that he wanted the shop in question for his own use and occupation to run the business of selling electrical goods. He has placed on record document Ex.P6 to show that he has a National Trade Certificate from an I.T.I. as a trained Electrician. He has also placed on record Ex.P7 which is a certificate issued by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab to the effect that he was qualified to act as Electrical Supervisor. In his petition the landlord had disclosed that behind the shop in question and adjoining the same there are two shops also owned by him which were in possession of Ishwar Dutt and Yousaf Khan as tenants. He has stated that he had already filed petitions for eviction of the said tenants as well. It was further his case that he had not vacated any non-residential property within the municipal limits of Nabha where the shop is located after coming into force of the Act. It was his case that while he wants the shop in question for his own use to sell electrical goods, in the two shops which are on the back of the demised shop he wanted to settle his two sons who were unmarried. The tenants contested the petition denying the fact that there was any bonafide personal necessity of the landlord.

(3.) After examining the controversy, the Rent Controller held in favour of the landlord after holding as hereunder :-