S P SETHI Vs. R R GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two revision petitions directed against the order dated 23.8.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority Chandigarh, affirming the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh dated 17.4.2003 vide which the petition for ejectment has been accepted on the ground of personal necessity. However, the ground of subletting did not find favour with the Rent Controller and the petitioners- tenants were directed to vacate the demised premises i.e. entire first floor of Shop-cum-Of-fice No. 10, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the respondents-landlords within a period of two months from the date of the order.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that respondents-R.R.Gulati and others filed an eviction petition against the present petitioners-tenants, claiming themselves to be the sole and absolute owners of the demised premises. It was pleaded that petitioners i.e. United India Assurance Company Limited and S.P.Sethi are tenants in the first floor of the premises for the last many years. It was further pleaded that ground floor and part of the second floor are occupied by the respondents as tenants since 1969. The respondents having purchased the demised premises vide registered sale deed, have become entitled to receive rent from the petitioners-tenants. It was pleaded that the petitioners (herein) are tenants on the first floor on payment of rent @ Rs. 550/- per month. In spite of information given to the petitioners-tenants regarding purchase of demised premises from the previous owner, they did not make the payment of rent with effect from 1.4.2000, therefore, they were in arrears of rent and were liable to be evicted on that ground. It was further pleaded that respondents- landlords own some properties as detailed in sub-paras (a) to (h) of para No. 3. It was pleaded that respondent do not own any other suitable commercial property except the properties mentioned above. It was further stated that two of the grand children, namely, Ajay Gulati and Aman Gulati having completed their education, are going to enter the business being run by the family at different places, therefore, the respondents-landlords have decided to expand their business. They have decided that the Empire Stores would be running a complete departmental store in the entire Shop-cum-Office No. 10, Sector 17E, Chandigarh, but the space in their possession is insufficient. The demised premises is suitable for expansion of business of the Empire Stores as they are already running their business therein at the ground floor. The respondents- landlords requested all their tenants to vacate the respective portions under their tenancy and the same request was also made to the petitioners-tenants.

(3.) Petitioner-United India Assurance Company contested the petition on the ground that M/s Empire Stores is running the business on the ground floor for the last several years. As mentioned in the petition, the respondents have large number of other commercial properties at different places, therefore, they have sufficient accommodation to run and expand their business. It was stated that respondents have no personal or bona fide need qua the demised premises. The sub-tenancy in favour of S.P. Sethi was created before coming into force of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and the previous owner never objected to the same. The petitioner-tenants have been paying the rent regularly and if any rent is due the same would be tendered before the court. Petitioner-S.P. Sethi submitted that he was inducted as a tenant in the year 1969 and the previous owner had consented for subletting. The premises being commercial property, no ground of personal necessity is available Under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. It was stated that respondents do not require the premises for their personal necessity. He denied having any knowledge with regard to expansion of business of respondents- landlords. The respondents have failed to show the personal necessity as they have simply alleged that the grandsons are going to join the partnership firm of M/s Empire Stores. The need projected is not of the landlords, but of the partnership firm. It was further stated that first and second floors of the Shop- cum-Offices are only meant for office purposes and no departmental store can be opened on these floors. It was pleaded that accommodation under the partnership firm is sufficient to run the business and the real intention behind filing eviction petition is to get the old tenants evicted as these premises have been hired at a very low rent.