VINOD KUMAR Vs. SAT PAUL KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is in revision aggrieved against the order of ejectment passed by the Authorities under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act') on the ground that the demised premises measuring 23 feet 7 inches x 12 feet 6 inches is required by the landlord for his own bona fide use and occupation.

(2.) THE petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the year 1977 by the father of the present respondent. The respondent retired on 30.6.2000 from his employment with the Canara Bank and thereafter by way of present petition filed on 14.8.2004 sought the ejectment of the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the demised premises is required for bona fide use and occupation of the landlord himself and his two sons, namely, Gautam Kapoor and Deepak Kapoor. It was pleaded in the petition itself that Gautam Kapoor is doing private job but his salary is meagre and with the said salary it is not possible for him to make his both ends meet. It was pleaded that the shop in possession of Deepak Kapoor is hardly 4 feet X 6 feet and the said shop is so small that it is not even possible to keep extra chair in the said shop. It was pleaded case of the landlord that his sons are joint in food and residence and he intends to start large scale business of books and note-books in the demised premises.

(3.) BEFORE this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the application for leading additional evidence filed before the Appellate Authority so as to produce the judgment and decree dated 24.2.2006 passed by Civil Judge Jalandhar and the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2006 passed by the Appellate Court has not been decided. The learned Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal did not consider and decide the above mentioned application for additional evidence. Therefore, the matter is required to be remitted back to the Appellate Authority to enable the said Authority to decide the application for additional evidence as well as the appeal on merits. It is also argued that the landlord retired in the year 2000 whereas the ejectment petition was filed in 2004 i.e. after a gap of four years. Such ejectment petition was filed on 10.8.2004, i.e after the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner, which shows that the ejectment of the tenant was not on any bona fide reason but as a counter blast to the suit of permanent injunction. It is also an admitted fact that the landlord has another portion at the back of his shop, which if utilised, will make sufficient accommodation available for the use of landlord and his sons. It is also argued that Deepak Kapoor, one of the sons, has not been examined as a witness in support of the plea that the premises, in fact, are required for bona fide use by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Ajit Singh v. Jit Ram, 2008(2) RCR(Rent) 328 : 2008(4) RCR(Civil) 390 : 2008(5) RAJ 388 to contend that the landlord has not pleaded the three ingredients required to prove the bona fide requirement of his son as well, which is also mandatory requirement.