RAM DASS HIRA LAL Vs. SUNIL KUMAR SEKHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the tenant- petitioners against the order dated 2.5.2003 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, ordering eviction of the petitioners, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE landlord-respondents sought eviction of the petitioners from the demised premises on the averment that vide lease deed dated 15.10.1990 the petitioners were inducted as tenant in the basement and half of Ground Floor portion of SCO No. 3027-28, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh on payment of Rs. 1,500/- as rent. The lease was for a period of 5 years which (sic). The eviction of the petitioner-tenant was on the ground of bona fide necessity raising the plea that Sunil Kumar Sekhri, respondent No. 1 herein had 1/4th share in the demised premises and he was doing his business of chemical and paints in Industrial plot No. 26/5, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh as a tenant under Uttar Kumar Garg as per lease dated 30.9.1993 on payment of Rs. 3,630/- per month for an area of 12' x 50'. The landlord respondent No. 1 wished to run his business from the ground floor and basement portion of the demised premises as he wanted to use the ground floor as a shop while the basement portion as a godown. It was claimed that the accommodation from where the business was being run by Sunil Kumar Sekhri, respondent No. 1 was inadequate and insufficient to meet his demand. It was further claimed that the landlord of Sunil Kumar Sekhri was pressing hard to vacate the premises occupied by him. It was also claimed that as the landlord-respondent No. 1 did not own or possess any commercial premises within the urban area of U.T. Chandigarh nor had vacated any such building in the said urban area without any sufficient cause, the eviction of the tenant-petitioner was sought.

(3.) THE learned lower Appellate Court rejected the contention of the learned counsel for the tenant by coming to the conclusion that before the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harbilas Rai Bansal v. State of Punjab, 1995(2) RCR(Rent) 672 : 1996(1) RRR 69 : AIR 1996 SC 857 the commercial building was not open to eviction on the ground of personal necessity and in that situation, entering into fresh lease with existing tenant could not be a ground to defeat the claim of bona fide requirement which was duly established.