SURJIT SINGH Vs. TEJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the oral request of Mr. Sandhir that in memo of parties, name of father of landlord is wrongly mentioned and it should be corrected as Dr. Anant Singh, it is ordered that the name of father of landlord be read as "Dr. Anant Singh".

(2.) TEJINDER Singh son of Dr. Anant Singh, who, as per the evidence, is 100% blind and to eek out his livelihood, wanted the demised premises for his personal necessity for running S.T.D./PCO Booth, with aid and help from his wife is running from pillar to post.

(3.) MAKHAN Singh, father of the petitioner, was inducted as tenant by Gian Kaur, mother of Tejinder Singh, landlord, at a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. Makhan Singh died. Surjit Singh inherited the tenancy. The rate of rent was increased to Rs. 125/- per month. By way of Gift Deed Tejinder Singh became owner and after death of Gian Kaur, mother, landlord of the property. Gift Deed was executed on 1.7.1969. As stated earlier, in 1996 eviction petition was filed on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent since March 1990 till the filing of the petition. Secondly, Surjit Singh, tenant, had sublet the shop to Davinder Singh alias Goldy, son of another Sujit Singh as sub tenant Davinder Singh alias Goldy was not related to Surjit Singh, petitioner-tenant, and has been running the business of shoe shop. Thirdly, it was further stated that the shop was given on rent for doing the business of photography whereas tenant has changed the use of the property and is now running a shoe shop in the name and style of M/s. Delight Boot House. Fourth ground taken was that the landlord being aged and handicapped, required the shop for his own use and occupation as he intends to start business of STD/PCO with the help of his wife and he has no other property in Amritsar. Necessary ingredient has been pleaded that the landlord has not vacated any other property after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Fifth ground taken was that the tenant has done material alterations and has impaired the value and utility of the demised premises.