MANOHAR LAL SANGHI Vs. JASWANT RAI AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .M. No. 5520-CII of 2007. Notice. Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and states that the respondent-landlord has no objection if the documents attached with the application are permitted to be taken on record. In view thereof, the present application is allowed. The documents attached with the application are permitted to be taken on record. C.R. No. 1840 of 2006. The tenant is in revision aggrieved against the order of eviction passed by the learned Appellate Authority on the ground that the demised premises is required for bona fide personal use and occupation of the landlord.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord inducted the present petitioner as tenant in the shop located at Pull Bazar, Narnaul on 17.12.1977 at the monthly rent of Rs. 325/-. The rate of rent was enhanced to Rs. 407/- per month w.e.f. 6.1.1992. The ejectment was sought by the landlord, inter-alia, on the ground that the premises is required for bona fide use and occupation of the landlord as he wants to run his business in the demised premises after his retirement. The tenant controverted the averments made by the landlord and asserted that the landlord was having other non-residential property in the urban area at Narnaul, which was rented out to one Shambhu Dayal Kokcha and, therefore, the ground of personal necessity is not available to the landlord.

(3.) IN appeal, it has been found by learned Appellate Authority that at the time of letting of the premises on rent vide Rent Note Exhibit P-12, the appellant-respondent was serving in Municipal Council, Rewari. He superannuated on 31.1.1997. The landlord appeared as PW-3 and deposed that he was in need of the shop to run a business for his own livelihood after retirement. The ejectment petition was filed in July, 1997. The Appellate Authority found that the premises in dispute is commercial in nature. It has been found that the landlord with his family, is keeping his residence in the building, other than the shop in dispute. Apart from the two buildings i.e. one under litigation and another being used for residence of the landlord, the landlord has no other building. Thus, the learned Appellate Authority found that merely because a son of the landlord had been carrying out the business of sale and purchase of shares from his residence when he was staying with the landlord for some time, would not change the building from residential to non residential. Still further, it has been found that if six sons of the landlord are engaged in different business activities at different places and the landlord keeps on visiting them, it cannot be indicative of the fact of running of business by the landlord with his sons. It was found that the landlord has no commercial property from where he can make both ends meet by running a business after his retirement. Thus, the learned Appellate Authority found that the requirement pleaded is proved to be bona fide and consequently, an order of ejectment was passed.