TARSEM KUMAR Vs. CHARANJIT LAL

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE disputed premises consisted of a shop on the ground floor and a chobara, a courtyard and a latrine on the first floor. It was alleged by the landlords that tenant Charanjit Lal is residing on the first floor while the business was being carried on in the shop on the ground floor of the disputed building. The eviction was sought, inter alia, on the ground of personal requirement of the premises by the landlord. In the written statement it was pleaded that the disputed premises is a shop and a commercial building and was wrongly described as a shop-cum-flat in the ejectment application and that the same is being used for business purpose only being a commercial building. Chobara is a part of the commercial building and is being used as a store of the shop ever since the tenancy started. Charanjit Lal sometimes stayed in the chobara during the night to guard the store especially when sufficient cash was kept there. There was no kitchen or bath room in premises and the property being commercial could not be got vacated for personal necessity.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that Charanjit Lal tenant has admitted that he was residing in the chobara over the shop in dispute. Thus, argued the learned counsel, once it is found that he was residing therein, the building could not be said to be commercial one.