ACHHAR MAL Vs. MANOHAR LAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Achhar Mal landlord instituted a petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of Manohar Lal Jain from the demised shop in dispute, which is situated in Main Bazar, Mukerian, detailed and described in the head note of the petition.

(2.) Two grounds were pressed in the petition. Firstly, that tenant is in arrears of rent since 16th March, 1992 and shop is required for the unemployed son of the landlord and the landlord after retirement wants to start and run his own business and settle his unemployed son. Written statement was filed. In the written statement, it was stated that the rent has been tendered. Ground of personal necessity was denied and it was stated that landlord does not require the shop for his own use or for use of his son. It was stated that his son is residing out of the State and the landlord also resides with him. Replication was filed, in which the averments made in the eviction petition were reiterated. Thereafter, Court formulated following issues :

(3.) In evidence, landlord Achhar Mal appeared as PW-1. He stated the rate of rent to be Rs. 24/- per month. He further stated that he requires the shop in dispute for his own use and occupation. In crossexamination, firstly he stated that he is residing at Jalandhar, then stated that at that time he was residing at Panchkula. His elder son is in service at Chandigarh but his younger son is unemployed. He further stated that he has a house in Ward No. 5 and no body is living there. The house is not fully demolished but is partially demolished. Madhu Jain, son of the tenant Manohar Lal Jain appeared as RW-1. He stated that shop is not required by the landlord as he is residing from last 6 - 7 years at Panchkula, which is out of the State of Punjab. It is stated that one son of the landlord is working in PGI, Chandigarh. About other son, name, employment and name of employer are not known to him. After the evidence was recorded, Rent Controller held that since rent has been tendered, the ground of nonpayment of rent is not available. However, Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the shop in question is required by the landlord for his own use and occupation. Aggrieved against the same, tenant filed an appeal, in which findings of the Rent Controller regarding personal necessity were reversed and it was held as under :