PARKASH RAM Vs. YASHPAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is in revision aggrieved against the ejectment order passed by the Courts below on the ground that the same is required for bona-fide use and occupation of the landlord.

(2.) THE landlord has sought ejectment of the petitioner herein, inter-alia, on the ground that he has retired from U.P. State Electricity Board and settled at Hoshiarpur, after completing 30 years of service. He intends to set up the business of Public Call Office (for short 'PCO') and to install photostat machines for the commercial purpose in the shop in question, which is situated in the heart of the city. It was also mentioned that he has got another shop adjoining to the shop in question, which is in possession of a tenant and that another shop at Sutheri Road in occupation of his son for the last six years and that he is not in possession of any vacant shop within the municipal limits of Hoshiarpur.

(3.) IN the replication, it was pleaded that the shop adjoining to the shop in question is bigger in size to the shop in question and thus not suitable for the purposes of doing the business of PCO as well as the photostats. It was stated that the shop in question is best suitable, which is 5 feet wide only and that the shop in dispute is adjoining to the house of the landlord. While appearing as PW3, the landlord has deposed that he intends to install the photostate machines for commercial purpose in the shop in question, which is situated in the heart of the city at Railway Road and is the best place to do such kind of business and that the said place is adjacent to his house. He has deposed that another shop adjoining to the shop in dispute is bigger in size. The same was vacated by the previous tenant with the condition that the landlord will induct a fresh tenant of his choice as he had taken premium from him and that the landlord was not delivered the possession of the shop.