SUKHJINDER SINGH Vs. HARJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlord sought ejectment of his tenants from the premises in dispute, consisting of a shop inter alia on the grounds that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation, as he wanted to start wool business or any other business of his liking. In the written statement, the main contest was that the premises in dispute were non-residential and as such, the ground of personal necessity was not available to the landlord. A previous application on these very grounds filed by the landlord was dismissed on 11.11.1982 and therefore, the present application was not maintainable. The learned Rent Controller found that the premises in dispute was a non-residential building and therefore, the landlord was not entitled to eject his tenant for his personal necessity. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus, maintained the order rejecting the application.

(3.) THE only argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that since the premises in dispute formed part of a residential building, even though it was let for commercial purposes it still continues to be residential building and therefore, the landlord was entitled to eject the tenant for his bonafide requirement.