NARINDER KUMAR SHIV KUMAR DHAWAN Vs. SUNITA CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT is in revision aggrieved against the order of ejectment passed by the learned Appellate Authority on the ground that the demised premises i.e. shop bearing No. B-VIII/2320, Rupnagar, Tehsil and District Rupnagar, is required by the respondent for use and occupation of one of the landlords, Pardeep Chopra.

(2.) ONE Vishnu Dutt, who was owner of the shop in dispute, let out the same to the present petitioner vide rent note Exh. P-2 dated 30.4.1975. Vishnu Dutt died on 14.12.1992. The respondents are the wife and son of predeceased son of Vishnu Dutt, namely, Satish Kumar Chopra. Vishnu Dutt had another son, Sohan Lal Chopra. The respondent No. 1-Sunita Chopra and wife of Sohan Lal Chopra, are real sisters. Deceased Vishnu Dutt had executed a Will dated 27.3.1990 in favour of his son Sohan Lal Chopra and his grandsons, i.e. sons of Satish Kumar Chopra, namely Pardeep Chopra and Rajnish Chopra. It has also come on record that Rajnish Chopra has since died and his share in the property has been inherited by his mother, Sunita Chopra i.e. wife of Satish Kumar Chopra.

(3.) LEARNED Rent Controller dismissed the petition, inter alia, on the ground that the respondents have not come to Court with clean hands inasmuch as the oral partition is not complete partition of the joint property i.e. residential house, plot in urban estate and agricultural land have not been partitioned. As per the respondents, only two shops have been partitioned whereas the demised premises is bigger than the shop which is in possession of Sohan Lal Chopra where the parties are already doing the business of selling milk. Learned Rent Controller found that Pardeep Chopra sits with Sohan Lal Chopra in Shop No. 1616/1 and is engaged in the business of selling milk and, thus, found that the respondents have failed to prove their requirement. Learned Appellate Authority found that apart from the oral evidence of partition, there is documentary evidence corroborating the partition i.e. the record of the Municipal Committee for the year 1998-99 and the order dated 3.4.1999 wherein the property was mutated in the name of Sunita Chopra i.e. wife of Satish Kumar Chopra. In the house tax assessment records for the years 1998-99 and 2000-2001, the property in dispute has been shown in the name of Sunita Chopra and similar position is reflected in the assessment registers, Exhs. RG, RH and RI. The Court found that Kumar the respondents have no source of income and that Pardeep Chopra had dropped his studies. Believing such statement, learned Appellate Authority passed an order ejectment on the ground that the premises are required for bona fide use and occupation of the respondents herein.