OM PARKASH Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the ejectment order passed by the authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short `the Act'), on the ground of bona-fide personal requirement of the landlord-respondent.

(2.) Admittedly, one Baij Nath, was the owner of the two shops. One of the shops was let out to the petitioner herein vide rent note dated 24.5.1979 Exhibit A.8. Baij Nath died on 22.11.1997. Baij Nath has executed a registered will dated 19.7.1996 Exhibit A.1 vide which one shop has been bequeathed in favour of Surinder Kumar landlord and the other in favour of Ashok Kumar, brother of Surinder Kumar. Both the Courts have returned a concurrent finding of fact that the shop in dispute is required for bona-fide personal requirement of the landlord.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that one of the shops is in possession of Surinder Kumar and, therefore, he cannot seek ejectment of the tenant from another shop. Reference is made to the statement of AW5 Ashok Kumar, brother of Surinder Kumar. I am unable to agree with the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. AW5 Ashok Kumar, brother of Surinder Kumar has appeared as a witness to support the execution of a Will Exhibit A.1, executed by his father. As per the said Will, one shop stands bequeathed in favour of Ashok Kumar and the other in favour of Surinder Kumar. In fact, the witness has volunteered to state that the shop in which sale of kerosene oil is run is in his possession. The said statement in fact leaves no manner of doubt that the other shop, the possession of which is allegedly with Surinder Kumar is in fact bequeathed in favour of Ashok Kumar alone, who is in its possession as well.