SADHU RAM VERMA Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders passed by the authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, whereby the ejectment sought by the petitioner from the shop on the ground of bona-fide personal requirement, was declined.

(2.) IT is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he has raised construction over plot No. 119 Anaj Mandi, Kurali, after taking loan from the Government. He has let out the room in question to the respondent about 22 years back at monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. He has sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he intends to start his own business therein to augment his income and to live a peaceful life. It has been also pleaded by the petitioner that earlier he filed an ejectment petition against the respondent alleging the premises in dispute as residential building. However, the learned Rent Controller found that the tenanted building is a shop. Even the appeal has been dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner sought the eviction of the tenant from the shop in dispute on the ground of bona-fide personal requirement. The tenant in the written statement denied the bona-fide personal requirement. It was pleaded that the ejectment is sought so as to increase the rent of the shop. The petitioner is also possessing other accommodation consisting of shops, Chabutaras and constructed house and in case, he wants to start his business, he can just occupy the same and start his business.

(3.) BOTH the Courts have dismissed the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that it is admitted by the petitioner that the portion of the shop let out to the respondent is in his possession. Though it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner has two other shops, one near City Police Station and another in the main Bazaar but it has been found that the petitioner is in occupation of the shop adjacent to the tenanted shop. The petition for ejectment was dismissed.