ANJALI GULATI Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Abohar, dated 9th of March, 2000 vide which application moved by the petitioner under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, was ordered to be dismissed. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 7.4.2001 and the order passed by the Rent Controller was upheld.

(2.) The petitioner landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the 'Act') against the tenant-respondent for his ejectment from one shop. It was pleaded that the petitioner is owner of one residential house bearing M.C. No. B1/1137, situated in street No. 12, First Chowk, Abohar, and shop in dispute which is a part of the residential house was rented out to the respondent-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 800/- vide rent note dated 5.5.1989. The ejectment was sought on the grounds : (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.10.1996, (ii) that the Municipal Corporation, Abohar, levied a fire cess and fresh taxes @ 10% of the House-tax w.e.f 2.8.1993 and notice in this regard was issued to the tenant by the petitioner and, accordingly, he was liable to pay Rs. 576/- as fire cess w.e.f. 2.8.1993 and (iii) the petitioner required the tenanted premises for his personal use and occupation. It was claimed that the petitioner was a qualified engineer and a Govt. approved valuer. He is in this profession since the time when there was no competition. However, some more valuers had joined the said profession as such the petitioner has to compete with them. It was claimed that some of the valuers were not qualified and they had started this profession on the basis of diploma in draftsmanship or on the basis of experience in construction work. The new entrants had opened their offices on the main road as the clients feel convenient in going to their offices which can be seen from the road itself. It was further claimed that there was a space for parking of the vehicles in front of their offices and in order to compete with them as competitor he needed a well furnished air conditioned office with gate and transparent glasses on the main road i.e. street No. 12. It was also pleaded that he wanted to give all facilities and comfort to his clients and customers. It was claimed that on these facts request was made to the tenant to vacate the premises and he failed to do so. Therefore, the present petition was filed.

(3.) The respondent-tenant appeared and on the first date of hearing tendered the rent from 1.10.1996 to 30.9.1997. In addition thereto, Rs. 576/- as fire cess and Rs. 524/- towards costs were tendered for payment to the petitioner, which was accepted by the landlord-petitioner under protest. The tenant thereafter filed a written statement wherein factum of tenancy at Rs. 800/- per month was admitted. However, it was claimed that the respondent was not liable to pay fire cess as no notice regarding this was issued to him. However, as the payment was made, issued of non-payment was not pressed. The respondent-tenant also denied the plea of the petitioner that the shop in dispute was required for his personal need. It was claimed that the present petition was filed as he failed to raise the rent.