OM PARKASH Vs. HOSHIARI LAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant, who has been evicted on the requirement of the landlord for establishing his own business in vending fruits, is in revision after two successful decisions upheld the claim of the landlord.

(2.) Before me, it is contended that the landlord has suppressed the fact that he had another shop premises available with him and being guilty of suppression, he is not entitled to an order of eviction. He relies on the decision of this Court in Ranjit Singh Vs. Shri Hari Mittar Sharma and others 1996 HRR 613. that if the landlord does not plead the necessary ingredients set out under Sec. 13(3)(a)(i) (b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the landlord would not be entitled to obtain eviction. Yet another decision of this Court in Shri Jagjit Lal alias Jagjit Singh Vs. Shri Gurjinder Singh Arora, and anr 1977 RCR 608. referred to a case where a landlord had specifically pleaded that he had no other property and there was in evidence that yet another property was available and that was found to be sufficient to non-suit the landlord in application for eviction. The decision in Lal Chand Vs. Parshotam Lal and others, 1974 RCR 209. referred to a case of landlord who did not mention in his pleadings about the occupation of another building in the same area but stated that he was occupying as a licencee of his father and finding that his occupation of other building to be true, the Court found that the requirement as evident to be proved under that was not established. I am afraid none of the decisions, which the learned counsel relies apply to the facts of the case especially when parties have joined issue on the availability of another building and there has been no surprise of the trial. The tenant has specifically pleaded that the other property which the landlord owned had been used for the same business while the landlord explained that such property have been used as a godown for ripening the fruits. The requirement of the landlord came through a situation where he was vending his vegetables in a cart placed opposite a petrol pump and the petrol pump had been closed and the police had prevented him from vending the fruits in the cart. He had, therefore, a requirement of shop to carry on the business. The other building which he owned and which was brought out through evidence had been found by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority as a place for ripening the fruits and there was no fruit shop at all in the locality of Vishvakarma Chowk where the said building of the landlord had been located. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority were alive to the existence of another shop but concurrently found that it was not fit for use as a shop for vending fruits and that it was only a property, portion of which was used for a store house and the remaining portion as residence.

(3.) There is no error either in legal reasoning or in appreciation of evidence. There is no merit in the civil revision petition and is accordingly dismissed. Time for eviction is granted for two months.