KANHIYA LAL Vs. HARISH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant is aggrieved against the order of the Appellate Authority, Sonepat dated 17.11.2016 whereby, ejectment has been ordered on the ground of cease to occupy while allowing the cross objections of the respondent-landlord. The appeal filed by the tenant had also been accepted and the ground of ejectment on bona fide necessity was allowed and accordingly, ejectment ordered by the Rent Controller on the said ground was set aside.

(2.) The petition was instituted by the respondent for eviction from the shop in question which had been let out in the year 1975 @ Rs. 80/- per month. The grounds of eviction were that on account of cease to occupy for a continuous period of 4 months and since the respondent was not carrying on any business for the last 2 years, ejectment was liable. The landlord was stated to be a retired person and his daughter-in-law had done M.A. and B.Ed., required the premises to start the business of ladies garments in the shop in question. The plea was contested regarding ceasing to occupy whereas the rate of rent @ Rs. 80/- per month was admitted. It was alleged that earlier, a rent petition had been dismissed in the year 2002 and, therefore, the bona fides as such of the landlord were questioned. Keeping in view the averments and the statement of the landlord who appeared as AW-1 to whom a suggestion had been made that the wife of the tenant had met with an accident in October, 2013 and in view of the evidence of the daughter-in-law who had appeared as AW-2 and the fact that there was documentary proof of consumption of bills from January, 2013 to August 2015, the ground for eviction on cease to occupy had been rejected by the Rent Controller. The eviction had been ordered, as noticed, on the ground that the premises in question were required by the daughter-in-law. Mere ownership of the two other shops were held not to be a ground to disbelieve or consider the requirement not a genuine requirement keeping in view the settled principle that the landlord was not to be dictated the terms as to how the property is to be utilized.

(3.) Since both the parties were not satisfied with the order of the Rent Controller, the appeal was filed by the petitioner whereas, cross objections were preferred by the landlord. To arrive at the conclusion, the Appellate Authority in detail, considered the statements of as many as 7 witnesses examined by the respondent-landlord and the 4 witnesses examined by the petitioner-tenant. To dismiss the rent petition on the ground of bona fide requirement and while allowing the appeal of the present petitioner, it was held that the mandatory requirements were not mentioned in the rent petition and on account of earlier dismissal of the petition on the same ground and he had not pursued the occupation which he had pleaded. The sale had taken place of a shop and letting out of shops had been done to the other tenants and, therefore, the act and conduct of the landlord showed the mala fide intention and, therefore, there was no genuine and bona fide need as such. It was also noticed that he was aged around 80 years and the shops which had been sold and let out were adjacent to the shop in dispute and were not at any other place and, therefore, the claim that the shop was required for running the business for himself as well as daughter-in-law was not genuine and resultantly, the appeal of the tenant was allowed.