BATA INDIA LIMITED Vs. ASHOK KUMAR CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant who faces the order of ejectment issued by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner before this Court.

(2.) THE admitted case is that the Bata India Ltd., became a tenant under Krishna Rani. She had three sons Ashok Kumar, Ram Kumar and Pardeep Kumar. Two of her sons separated themselves from the joint family of which Joginder Pal Chopra, the husband of Krishna Rani was the Manager and set up independent business. Joginder Pal was having another shop in which he was carrying on a business with the younger son Pardeep Kumar. The original landlord Krishna Rani had three other shops which were in the hands of tenants.

(3.) LEARNED Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant refers to the averments of the petition where the landlord had admitted in paragraph 4 that even apart from the three shops namely the shop in the hands of two of her sons, the shop in the hands of her husband and the shop in the hands of the tenant, there were three other petty shops of small size such as bathroom nearby which according to the landlord were in occupation of the other tenants and that such shops were not suitable for the requirement and the demise shop was sought to be vacated. These averments in the petition were not a complete picture of true state of affairs but truth had been brought out in the evidence of AW-5 Ram Kumar (for whose benefit the property was sought) had admitted "the property purchased by Krishana Rani was under tenancy from the date of purchase. Some of the tenants vacated it voluntarily and the ejectment proceedings were filed to get it vacated. A writing was executed when those tenants who themselves vacated the shops ejectment order was passed against other tenants and not in possession of those, they might be in possession of my mother Krishna Rani". According to learned Senior counsel these properties which had been vacated by the tenants had not been referred to in the petition and hence the landlord's needs were not bona fide and the landlord was guilty of suppression of material evidence.