LALITA GUPTA Vs. MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Smt. Lalita Gupta, tenant in House No. 3208, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh, has filed this revision petition impugning the orders of her eviction as passed by the Appellate Court up-setting the view of the Rent Controller declining the prayer of the respondent for eviction of the petitioner. Respondent Mahesh Kumar Gupta is an Advocate and has filed this petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act seeking eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent and that he required the same for his bona fide personal use and occupation. The respondent, who is a practicing Advocate at Chandigarh and living on the ground floor of House No. 3356, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh with his father has sought eviction of the petitioner pleading that he needs the house for his personal use. The eight marlas house where he is presently staying as a licencee of his father, statedly is having insufficient accommodation for him and his family. Therefore, he after getting the house vacated, wants to live in his own house which he has bought vide registered sale deed dated 21.1.2003. The respondent has duly informed the petitioner-tenant in this regard. The petitioner had further disclosed that he has a family consisting of wife and two sons, who are studying in 7th and 9th classes and, thus, he would require the house which he has purchased for his own use. This house is comprising of drawing room, dining room, two bed rooms, a guest room, a store, a toilet, bath-room, kitchen besides front and back verandah.

(2.) THE petitioner, when put to notice, appeared and filed a written statement. The petitioner pleaded that present petition was liable to be stayed on the ground that the earlier petition filed by previous landlady Amrit Kaur on the ground of non-payment of rent was pending and during the pendency of the same, second petition would not be maintainable. It is stated that the respondent does not need the premises which he has knowingly purchased at much lower price than the actual market value and with the purpose only to make money by selling the same at the higher rate after getting it vacated from the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the previous owner had filed a petition for eviction on the ground of personal necessity which was dismissed. The appeal filed against the same order was pending before the court which was also in the knowledge of the respondent. It is, thus, pleaded that the present petition was not maintainable as the appeal filed by previous owner was still pending. It is submitted that the petitioner has paid rent and there is sufficient accommodation available in the house for the respondent where he is staying with his parents. It is claimed that the said house has been rented out again and again to different tenants.

(3.) THE respondent, who is a practicing Advocate, has prayed for eviction of the petitioner from the demised house claiming his personal need. The bona fide requirement of the house is advocated on the ground that the respondent is presently living with his father, where the accommodation is not sufficient enough for his family, which is consisting of wife and two sons and for running the office as an Advocate. The respondent has, thus, made out a case for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he would need this house for his personal bona fide use. On the other hand, the petitioner has vehemently contended that the respondent is going to settle abroad permanently and would not need this premises for his personal use and occupation and only intention is to sell the same after getting it vacated from the petitioner.