RAM LAL Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The need of the landlord for eviction for setting up a business at the demised property was upheld by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The need spelt out was that after this retirement from the service in Indian Tourism Department Corporation, he had planned to establish a hotel business. He had also stated that his son, at the time of presentation of the petition, was unemployed and he would associate his son in business.

(2.) THE grievance of the revision petitioner was that an important subsequent event namely the gainful employment secured by the son had not been properly appreciated. It was his further contention that the landlord was at all times interested in only securing a higher rental, as his past conduct would show and there was really no bona fide need for the landlord. It was his contention that the landlord had been a resident at Delhi, away from Chandigarh where the property was situate. He would urge that the approach of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in looking for proof from the tenant to establish that there were no bona fides on the part of landlord was wrong as per law; it was the landlord who had to establish his bona fides.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner questioned the bona fides of the landlord also by pointing out that the landlord was in a legal department in the Indian Tourism Department Corporation and he had no experience in the hotel business itself. Even as regards the son, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that he gained qualification in Information Technology and had been employed at Bangalore in HCL, a software company. At the Appellate Court, he had made an amendment to his written statement, introducing the plea that son's requirement as set forth in the rental petition no longer survived, in view of the subsequent development. On the bidding of the tenant, the landlord also produced copy of the passport and the appointment letter of his son which showed that he had been employed elsewhere away from Chandigarh and that he had also undertaken foreign jaunts in pursuance of his employment.