KAPOOR DIESEL SERVICE Vs. SUKHJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner (tenant) is in revision, aggrieved against the concurrent findings returned by the Authorities below, whereby his eviction has been ordered from Shop No.5, C-78, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent-landlord by the learned Rent Controller, SAS Nagar, Mohali vide judgment dated 25.5.2014 and the findings thereof were affirmed by learned Appellate Authority, Mohali vide judgment dated 02.03.2015.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that both the Authorities below have failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent (landlord) has connived with the GMADA officials in order to procure the order of resumption dated 105.2011 passed by Assistant Chief Administrator, PUDA as per which, due to violations done by the landlord in the demised premises, property is being resumed. However, it has been argued that no such violation was made by the petitioner (tenant) and in fact it is novel method of getting the tenant evicted from the shop because it was the landlord who had raised the unauthorised construction himself and thereafter let out the premises in question.

(3.) On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that in the present case, even if it is presumed, although denied vehemently that the landlord had raised illegally construction, still a notice from the GMADA authorities would itself entail the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity, so as to remove the building violations and avoid resumption of the building. To support his plea, he has relied upon 2014 (2) RCR (Rent) 319 Anil Kumar Ahuja & Anr. v. Anurag Bansal.