CHUNI LAL CHAUDHARY Vs. RAKESH BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed under Sec. 15(5) of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'the Act') against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below whereby, ejectment has been ordered on the ground of bona fide requirement for use of the premises which is a shop in question, detailed in the head note of the petition. The Rent Controller, Pathankot had ordered eviction on 30.07.2014 whereas the Appellate Authority upheld the order on 18.01.2016.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings which were initiated on 006.2006, Akhil Bakshi has let out a property and referred to sanction dated 20.01.2012 granted by the Election Department whereby rent is being paid by the District Electoral Office, Pathankot.

(3.) A perusal of the eviction petition would go on to show that the eviction petition was filed by the respondent through his wife, who was the General Power of Attorney taking the plea that the landlord was not keeping well and the property was rented out to the petitioner in Jan., 2004 on payment of Rs. 350.00 per month as rent for using the premises as a garage for parking his car. An attempt had been made to change the use as such and a civil suit for permanent injunction was also filed in which an interim injunction had also been issued. Resultantly, eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 01.08.2004 and also for the use of the property in question for settling his son Akhil Bakshi, who was doing a Chartered Accountancy Course. It was specifically alleged that at the time the tenancy was created, the landlord was sure that his son would get a job but he was still unemployed and thereafter, he had cleared the first group of Chartered Accountancy exam and, therefore, wanted to start the consultancy in accountancy in the shop in dispute. The other son Nikhil Bakshi had been settled by opening a shop in part of the residential house near the shop in dispute. The shop in dispute was suitable for setting up the office and the landlord had not vacated any other shop in the area of Pathankot and did not have any suitable accommodation in the urban area of Pathankot for settling his son Akhil Bakshi. Thus, it would be apparent that the mandatory ingredients which are required under the 1949 Act have specifically been pleaded.