HARJIT SINGH Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order passed by the Rent Controller dated 07.04.2015, whereby, on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent-landlord, petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for ejectment of the petitioner has been allowed, appeal against which preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, on 12.07.2016.

(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the whole shop was in possession of the petitioner and the possession was taken by the respondent-landlord on the basis of which FIR No.234 dated 23.10.2012 was registered against the respondent. During the investigation of the said FIR, a compromise (Ex.P-2) was entered into between the parties and as per the said compromise, a portion of the shop measuring 4'X9' was handed over to the petitioner whereas rent was fixed at the rate of 1,000.00 per month. He contends that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the factual position as is apparent from the FIR which was got registered by the petitioner as he was forcibly evicted from the tenanted premises. Thereafter, the eviction petition has been filed which shows that the intention of the respondent was only to take the possession of the premises either by hook or by crook in which he has ultimately succeeded by getting the eviction order in his favour from the Courts below. His further contention is that apart from the shop in question, the respondent has admitted that he is running another shop and workshop in his residential area which premises, is being utilised for the business purposes and therefore, he does not require the premises in question for his personal bona fide necessity as he is running a business in a part of his house and therefore, the intention primarily is only for getting the shop evicted from the petitioner and not expanding the business as has been projected. He, thus, contends that the orders passed by the authorities below cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-caveator asserts that the Courts below have properly appreciated the pleadings which are based upon the documentary evidence brought on record, which shows that the petitioner is in possession of a portion of the shop i.e. 4'X9' and not the complete shop. The factum with regard to the compromise is also apparent which is prior to the filing of the eviction petition and the signatures on the compromise has also been admitted by the petitioner. In the light of the admitted facts, it cannot be said that the petitioner was in possession of the complete shop. As a matter of fact, he was only in possession of a portion of the shop that too measuring 4'X9'. His assertion is that as regards the business in the residential premises is concerned, there is a workshop running in the residential area where there is a shop as well but there can be no denial of a fact that a commercial area is always better than a residential area the business is being sought to be expanded from the shop in the market which has been rightly projected and proved by the respondent-landlord before the Courts below and therefore, the findings as recorded by the authorities below cannot be said to be without any basis or perverse which would call for any interference by this Court. Prayer has, thus, been made for dismissal of the revision petition.