DALJIT SINGH Vs. KULWANT RAI & SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition filed under Sec. 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') by the landlord is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 06.10.2012, whereby the appeal of tenant was allowed and the ejectment order dated 27.01.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Kharar was set aside.

(2.) The reasoning which prevailed with the Appellate Authority for reversing the findings on the ground of bonafide need was that the landlord had not proved the family settlement arrived at between the family members and that earlier petitions had been filed for ejectment in which the grounds were arrears of rent and sub-letting. It was, accordingly, held that if there was necessity for the use and occupation of his son Surinder Singh, he would have taken the grounds of personal necessity in the petition which was filed on 21.01.1999 (Ex.R-7) and which was withdrawn on 04.09.2003 (Ex.R-8). Similarly, another petition had been filed on 26.02002 (Ex.R-10) in which also the ground had not been taken which was withdrawn on 03.09.2012 (Ex.R-12). The factum of the landlord having 20 feet area situated in front of his house lying vacant and four shops could be constructed weighed with the Appellate Authority, though it was noticed that the landlord could not be forced to raise construction and that he had deposed that he had no funds to raise construction. The admission of the landlord that his son Surinder Singh was running a business of the tailoring work for the last 10 years in one of the shops out of the two shops in front of of the house of the petitioner also weighed with the Appellate Authority while reversing the findings. Therefore, keeping in view that another shop was available in front of the house of the petitioner and keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in 'Ajit Singh and another Vs. Jit Ram and another' 2008 (2) RCR 328 (SC), it was held that there was suitable accommodation available with the landlord and his son who had not pleaded that he was in occupation of another building, the appeal was allowed on 06.01.2003.

(3.) The eviction petition was filed by the petitioner on the ground that the tenancy had been created on 16.02.1976 at a monthly rent of Rs. 177.50.00 for a period of 3 months. The tenant being a statutory tenant, thereafter, having not vacated was carrying on his business under the name & style of Kulwant Rai & Sons. The property in question had been owned by Lachhman Singh and Bachittar Singh sons of Hansa Singh and had fallen to the share of the landlord. Even otherwise from the day of the tenancy, the petitioner had inducted the tenant and had been receiving the rent. Resultantly, eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent from 01.06.2002 alongwith house tax @ 15% on the abovesaid rent. Apart from that bonafide requirement of the son Surinder Singh was put forth and it was specifically alleged that the petitioner was not occupying any other premises in the urban area for the purpose of business and had not been evicted any other building without sufficient cause, after the commencement of the Act.