MANOJ KUMAR Vs. SANDEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are tenants of a shop owned by the respondents. The respondents filed an ejectment petition before the Rent Controller, Fazilka seeking ejectment of the petitioners on various grounds, like arrears of rent, sub-letting, personal use, material alterations, negligent use of the building leading to its impairment and the same being unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Two grounds out of these found favour with the Rent Controller to direct ejectment. The Rent Controller found that the landlord was able to establish that the shop was needed for his personal use and that it was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Appellate Court also up-held the finding returned by the Rent Controller and that is how the petitioner-tenants are in revision before this court.

(2.) WHILE up-holding the plea of the respondents in regard to personal use of the shop, it is noticed that respondent-landlords had duly pleaded that they required the shop in dispute for expanding their business for whole sale of cloths. Reference is also made to the statement given by Sandeep Kumar that turn over of his cloth shop is around Rs. 10 lacs and that he is in a financial position to expand the business. He has further testified before the court that the prices had gone very high and in order to maintain his family, he would need more income for which he would require to expand his business and the possession of the demised shop for the purpose. Considering this to be sufficient to indicate bonafide need of the respondent-landlords, the ejectment order is maintained by the Appellate Court.

(3.) MERELY because a person is a bachelor does not mean that his need, which was earlier in existence, would vanish. The death of a co-owner, who is his mother, would also not be such a factor which can make the need to expand the business to cease or become non-existent. This business premises, that is the shop, ejectment from which of the petitioner was sought would still remain and can be maintained by respondent Sandeep Kumar even if he is left alone. His plea for expanding the business would still remain and can not come to an end with death of his mother. Strangely, it is also submitted that the respondent is bachelor and hence would have no need to expand business. There is nothing on record to indicate that he would remain so and is not intending to get married. This argument can really not be appreciated. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners deserve to be rejected and these are hereby so rejected.