JITENDER KUMAR KAUSHIK Vs. HARI PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a tenant and has been ordered to be evicted from a shop occupied by him. He remained unsuccessful in the appeal and has now filed the present revision petition, impugning both the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the appellate Court.

(2.) THE petitioner had taken two shops on rent at Gurgaon in the year 1968. He is running a photo-studio shop by the name of M/s Kaushik Studio and was paying a rent of Rs. 47/- per month. The respondent sought his ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent with effect from 1.9.1995 to 31.7.1998. The second ground to seek ejectment related to the requirement of a shop for settling the son of the respondent, Deepak Kumar and his widowed daughter-in- law Sunita. Out of the four sons of the respondents, elder one is statedly doing the business of photo-copying in a shop owned by his younger brother, Pawan Kumar, where Pawan Kumar is also running a Panwari Shop. His second son, Ravinder Kumar, has died, leaving behind wife, Sunita with two children. Third son of the respondent, aged 33 years is unemployed having no source of income. The respondent himself is running a Panwari Shop in a wooden Khoka on the Municipal land situated in Sadar Bazar, Gurgaon. This is on Tehbazari. It is pleaded that Deepak son of the respondent alongwith his widowed daughter-in- law, Sunita, wants to run a cloth business in the demised shop. It is pointed out that Deepak is entirely dependent upon the respondent and on Sunita, who is getting a salary of Rs. 2,200/- per month while working as a Teacher in the private school. This is not sufficient for Sunita to maintain herself and her two children. Thus, the shop is required for a bona fide need by the respondent It is disclosed that the petitioner is owning two shops, one of which is let out to one Jagdish Kumar @ Rs. 200/- per month while other one is lying closed.

(3.) AFTER appreciating the evidence and considering the arguments raised, the Rent Controller allowed the petition filed by the respondent and directed ejectment of the petitioner from the demised shop. The Appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and that is how he has filed the present revision petition.