JASWINDER SINGH Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-landlord who is aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, by the Rent Controller, Ambala dated 10.02.2004 and by the Appellate Authority, dated 09.06.2004, wherein it was held that the requirement of the landlord was not genuine and bona fide and resultantly, the eviction petition was dismissed.

(2.) The eviction petition was filed on 15.05.1999 for ejectment of the respondent-tenant from shop No. 4, forming part of house No. 1432-33, Block IV, Shakul Kund Road, Ambala City. It was pleaded by the landlord that the property was owned by Smt. Harbans Kaur, who transferred the same by way of Civil Court decree in favour of her son, Sukhdev Singh, to the extent of half share and grandson-Jaswinder Singh, petitioner, who is son of late Balwant Singh, to the extent of half share. A compromise had been entered for the distribution of the property and shops No. 3 & 4 had fallen to the share of the landlord and shop No. 5 had been kept joint. Shops No. 1 & 2 had fallen to the share of Sukhdev Singh and the possession was with the respondent since May, 1992 @ Rs.425/- per month, which was enhanced as per the rent deed, to Rs.470/- per month. In spite of the enhancement clause, which was due in May, 1998, the tenant had not increased the rent, as per the agreed terms. The landlord was an educated unemployed youth and was the only bread earner of his family along with his widowed mother and younger sister. He was wanting to do business of glass, photo-frames, plywood etc., for which he had been working in the local market and now, after getting experience, wanting to do business in his own premises which had fallen to his share, which was in possession of the tenant. Shop No. 1 was a big shop having godown on the back side and is on rent with one Davinder Kumar for Rs.1870/- per month whereas the shop in question, i.e., shop No. 4 was small shop measuring 9' x 14', from where he wanted to earn his livlihood, which had been given on rent by his grandmother. His father had also died on 25.01989 and he had been requesting the respondent to vacate the shop. Accordingly, it was averred that he did not own any other shop or suitable accommodation and shop in his name within the municipal limit of Ambala City. Eviction was also sought on the ground of increase of rent, which had not been done as per the rent deed dated 23.05.1992 (Ex.P2) and the change of user of the shop had also taken place, by selling of school bags which had resulted in the impairment of the value and utility of the tenanted shop.

(3.) Respondent-tenant took the plea that 7-8 years back, he had filed a petition for eviction on the same ground and during the said period, he had given the shop including the adjacent shops to 2 other tenants, namely, Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, watch repairer a week ago. He had put up a board of to-let in front of his shop and therefore, he did not need any shop for his business and therefore, wanted to increase the rent many folds. The earlier decree for eviction had been compromised and the rent had been increased and no rent deed was executed. The respondent was paying the highest rent in the shops and he was compelling him to pay double the rent and no rent deed had ever been executed. The shop had been given to Mr. Gupta on 07/08.08.1999. A petition for eviction had earlier been filed and ex parte decree had been obtained by Smt. Harbans Kaur and later-on, the matter was compromised and the shop was given on fresh terms and rent @ Rs.470/- per month which had been regularly paid. The petitioner had recently given the shop to another tenant which shows that he had no intention to start a business and was earning a lot from his dairy business and therefore, he was not coming forth with clean hands. It was denied that there was any rent deed and that the tenant was doing the same business for which the shop had been let out and not a single brick had been changed.