PROMILA KANWAR Vs. NARINDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised shop to the landlord within three months once they failed in their appeal filed against the order of their ejectment passed by the Rent Controller.

(2.) THE demised shop is a part of a building, which was owned by the respondent and his brother, Jagjit Singh. Heirs of Jagjit Singh agreed to sell their share to the respondent and, thus, he is the landlord of the said shop. The shop was let out to petitioner No. 1 at the monthly rent of Rs. 1150/- and rent note in this regard is 27.7.1983. The respondent sought ejectment of the petitioners from the demised shop on the ground that he requires the same for his personal use and occupation. The shop in dispute is a part of big building having 5 shops and a passage on its front portion. On the first floor of this building and a space behind, the respondent is running a hotel by the name of "Hotel Palace". The hotel is having 22 residential rooms and one dormitory. The hotel is having no restaurant or bar and as such, the respondent is not able to provide food and snacks to the customers who stay in the hotel which is having approximately 50% occupancy.

(3.) THE petitioners appeared in response to the notice. They raised objection in regard to the maintainability of the application on the ground that the respondent was not owner of the entire property. The petitioners would also dispute the bona fide need and necessity as projected by the respondent. Objection is also raised that heirs of Jagjit Singh have not been impleaded. Dispute regarding rate of rent is also raised. It is further pleaded that petitioner No. 2 is running the shop in dispute as a Manager of petitioner No. 1as he is having a power of attorney in his favour which is dated 15.2.1993. it is pointed out by the petitioners that the respondent is having a huge urban property. He is running a Navyug Marriage Palace opposite Bus Stand, Hoshiarpur. He also is running a Navjeet Farm-cum-marriage palace at Una Road besides the hotel by the name of "Hotel Palace". It is pointed out that neither the respondent nor his son, Shavinderjit Singh are ever found sitting in the either hotel or marriage palace. Shavinderjit Singh is stated to be an advocate by profession and is running a practice. It is also pointed out that the demised shop is only 10ft x 20 ft. from which the petitioners are earning their livelihood. The petitioners statedly are running Dhaba.