SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs. JASJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present case, eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was filed against the petitioner-tenant for his ejectment from one room situated at the rear side having entrance from backside adjoining to toilet of SCF No. 204, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh. It was stated in the eviction petition that landlord Jasjit Singh had purchased SCO No. 204, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh, from the original owners i.e. Charan Kaur wife of Sewa Singh and Hardev Singh son of Sewa Singh vide sale deed dated 24.7.1987. At that time, one room situated in the rear side of the premises which has been detailed and described in the eviction petition was on rent with petitioner-tenant. It was stated that the rent paid by the tenant was Rs. 900/- per month. It was a monthly tenancy starting from first of each month. It was pleaded in the eviction petition that the premises was rented out for business of spray painting but thereafter the tenant changed the use of the premises from spray painting to paint through bhatties (fire ovens) and, therefore, a considerable damage has been caused to the property. Another ground taken in the ejectment petition was that the premises are required for personal use and occupation as the landlord intended to set up his own independent business of sale and purchase of spare parts after his retirement in 1986. It was further stated that the petitioner required the premises in order to help his son who was carrying out the business in the front of the shop. It was further stated that the relations between the landlord and his son Darshan Singh who is running shop in the main portion of the premises in question are strained. Therefore, the petitioner required the back portion which was in use and occupation of the tenant. Essential ingredient that the landlord is not in use and occupation of any other premises and has not vacated any such premises was also pleaded. Notice of the application was issued.

(2.) TENANT appeared and filed a written statement. He denied that he changed the use of the premises. It was stated that since inception he is in the business of painting of vehicles etc., fire ovens were in existence since 1986 and the same were installed with the consent of the previous landlord. Ground of personal necessity was denied. It was stated that the petitioner was doing the business of denting and painting of vehicles independently.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the following issues were formulated by learned Rent Controller :- 1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the grounds of change of user and personal necessity and non payment of rent ? OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPD 3. Relief. 4. Landlord himself appeared as PW.4. He examined Balbir Kumar as PW.1, Kuldip Singh as PW.2 and Vijay Kumar as PW.3. Respondent examined Om Parkash as RW.1, Mukteeshwar Joshi as RW.2 and he himself appeared as RW.3.