ARUN KUMAR Vs. RAJESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-landlord is aggrieved of judgment dtd. 10/3/2014 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, whereby order dtd. 17/8/2013 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh has been set aside. Consequently, eviction of the respondent- tenant as ordered by the learned Rent Controller has been set aside and the petition filed by the petitioner dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that the petitioner-landlord filed a petition under Sec. 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the premises as described in the petition. It was averred that the respondent was a tenant in an area of 150 Sq. feet at the Plot/Shed No. 691, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh. Fresh lease deed dtd. 24/9/2005 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent for a term of eleven (11) months and rent of the premises was fixed at the rate of Rs.2300.00 per month, to be increased at the rate of 5%, in case, the lease was to be extended. However, the respondent-tenant is alleged to have occupied another room measuring 5 feet x 5 feet without permission of the petitioner. He even stopped paying rent on one pretext or the other. Respondent-tenant was alleged to be in arrears of rent since August 2005 at the rate of Rs.2415.00 per month as well as electricity charges. Personal necessity was pleaded by the petitioner while stating that he required the premises for his personal use and occupation by restarting of the work of car garage. Petitioner stated that he was unemployed. The car garage which used to be run in the premises earlier had been closed due to some problems after the death of the petitioner's father. However, the petitioner again sought to reopen the said garage for his livelihood.

(3.) Petition was contested by the respondent-tenant inter alia submitting that the tenanted premises were not properly described as no site plan was attached. Moreover, the landlord, it was pleaded did not come to Court with clean hands. The present petition was filed as a counter blast to the suit filed by the respondent against the landlord, which was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh. It was further pleaded that respondent-tenant was in possession of only 138 Sq. feet and not 150 Sq. feet. It was denied that he was in illegal occupation of any area. The premises, it was averred could not be used for a garage, as it was allotted for a manufacturing unit. Moreover, the petitioner was contended to have let out a part of the premises to a new tenant at a higher rate of rent and the present petition has been filed for the purpose of increasing the rent only. The petitioner-landlord, it was averred resided abroad and came to India periodically. Dismissal of the petition was prayed for.