INDERJIT SINGH Vs. SHAM LAL CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS are the landlords. They filed a petition for eviction against petitioner Inderjit Singh with respect to a portion forming part of Shop-cum-Flat No. 14, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh. The grounds of eviction taken by the respondents were that the petitioner who is a tenant has failed to pay the arrears of rent and further the respondents bona fide require the property in question for personal use and occupation. It was asserted that respondents intend to shift to the tenanted premises alongwith members of their family. The petition for eviction was contested. The plea offered was that property is commercial in nature and further that the ground of bona fide personal requirement was not available to the respondents. It was also alleged that the rent was being paid regularly. The learned Rent Controller had framed the issues. It was held that the ground of bona fide personal requirement was available to the respondents and they did require the property. The contention of the petitioner that property was commercial in nature and not residential premises was rejected. With these basic findings an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal with the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. The learned Appellate Authority upheld the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal on 7. 3. 1995. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) A similar petition with respect to another portion on first floor has been filed against Shabir Ahmed. After recording of evidence vide separate order, an order of eviction was passed which was upheld by the Appellate Authority.

(3.) REPLY had been filed by the respondents. Needless to say that averments were controverted. It was denied that petitioner Inderjit Singh had wrongfully been dispossessed or beatings were given to him or to his relives. It was asserted that possession had been taken in the afternoon. The giving of information of stay of dispossession granted by this Court at 3. 00 p. m. is of no consequence because possession has already been taken.