JOGINDER Vs. SATISH BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below whereby, ejectment had been ordered by the Rent Controller, Kaithal on 07.03.2015 on the ground of non-payment of rent since the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied and also on account of bona fide requirement for setting up the office of Chartered Accountant for the landlord and which was upheld on 03.08.2016 by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that a plea had been taken that the petitioner was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- and house tax as well since 2004 and it has been held by the Appellate Authority that he was in possession since 2002 since an FIR had been lodged by the petitioner against Rajinder Parkash Bansal, the real brother of the respondent. It is, thus, submitted that since a false stand as such has been taken, eviction order was not justified. He has placed reliance upon judgment of the Apex Court in V. Chandersekaran and another v. The Administrative Officers and others, (2012) 12 SCC 133 to take the said plea.

(3.) A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that ejectment was sought from the shop in question on the ground floor bearing Private No. 1, part of MCK No. 953/11 situated at Kaithal-Ambala road. It was stated that the landlord was running his profession who is a Chartered Accountant and is having his office on the first floor of the said shop and the adjoining shop was also in possession of another tenant namely Dilbag Singh. Resultantly, due to the personal requirement, the petition was filed that the clients had to wait outside at the road and there was no proper place to adjust the clerk and stenos and the premises were not suitable.