SAMUNDER SINGH Vs. CHANDER PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-tenant is ordered to be evicted from the demised shop by the Rent Controller. He has remained unsuccessful in his appeal and has now filed the present revision petition.

(2.) RESPONDENT -brothers Chander Parkash and Pardeep Kumar are the landlords, a fact which is conceded by the petitioner. They had sought ejectment of the petitioner from the shop on the ground that the petitioner had sub-let the premises to his brother, Prithi Singh, who had started a x-ray laboratory therein. It is also pleaded that this will amount to diminishing the value and utility of the building in question, which has led to internal alterations without the consent of the landlord-respondents.

(3.) ALL the issues except issue No. 2 were taken up for discussion together and held against the petitioner. The fact that petitioner had left Bhiwani or that he had started medical practice at Behal was contested with vehemence and it was pleaded that he had not left Bhiwani permanently as alleged by the landlords. It is further claimed that Behal is quite near to Bhiwani and as such, the petitioner was simultaneously doing business at Behal and was in control of two shops situated at Behal as well as at Bhiwani. During his cross-examination, he admitted that he was running a business under the name and style of Lamba X-ray, Behal, where summon in the name of the petitioner were served to him. His stand that he has residence at both the places was found to be false on the basis that his ration card was at Behal and was an old one and he was listed as voter at Behal. In fact, the petitioner had tried to project that he had not got the ration card or voter card prepared at Behal. It also came out during his cross-examination that his brother who was at Bhiwani had only studied 10+2 and sometimes used to open the shop. His brother was also found residing at Krishana Colony Bhiwani but the petitioner could not tell even the number of his house. Prithi Singh, the brother of the petitioner, during his cross-examination conceded that he was sitting the shop in question for the last 7-8 years. He was not found to be carrying on any vocation in his life and was 30 years old. This fact was found to be one which would lend credence to the testimony of the landlord-respondents that the premises in question had been let out by the petitioner to his brothers and co-respondent Prithi Singh. The distance between Behal and Bhiwani was found to be 65 K.M. Which would be enough to indicate that it is not possible to run two shops at such a distant locations. Even the aspect of material altercation also stood proved on the basis of evidence and accordingly the petitioner was ordered to be ejected on both the grounds.