RAMESH KUMAR GOYAL Vs. HARDAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner - tenant is aggrieved of judgment dtd. 8/10/2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Patiala whereby the petitioner's eviction from the demised premises has been ordered as well as judgment dtd. 18/7/2017 passed by the learned Appellate authority, Patiala whereby judgment dtd. 8/10/2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Patiala has been upheld.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that respondent - landlord filed a petition under Sec. 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short - 'the Act') seeking eviction of the present petitioner - tenant from the demised premises i.e. a shop as detailed in the petition. It was pleaded by the respondent - landlord that he and his mother (since deceased) were/are the owners and landlords of the shop in question. The present petitioner was a tenant on the premises doing the work of a property dealer under the name and style of 'Goel Property Consultants'. The shop in question was taken on rent by the present petitioner from the landlords on 14/12/1988 at the rate of Rs.600.00 per month. Landlord Hardayal's mother Premwati passed away on 18/1/2006. Eviction of the present petitioner was sought on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of the landlord - Hardayal, who had retired from the office of the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, PWD (B&R) as Senior Assistant on 31/7/2008. It was pleaded that respondent wanted to start his business of electrical goods in the demised shop and he had not vacated any other building or premises within the municipal area immediately before filing of the petition. It was claimed that the petitioner was a bad tenant, who misbehaved and created a scene whenever rent was demanded from him.

(3.) Petition was contested by the present petitioner. In the reply filed by the petitioner, it was denied that the respondent and his mother were the owners of the demised shop though it was admitted that the present petitioner was a tenant in the said premises doing the work of a property dealer. It was further admitted that the shop was taken on rent at the rate of Rs.600.00 per month from Premwati. All the legal heirs of Premwati, it was alleged, had not been impleaded as party to the petition. It was denied that the shop was required by the respondent-Hardayal for his personal use or occupation for starting his own business of electrical goods after his retirement as Senior Assistant. It was denied that the petitioner was a bad tenant or misbehaved with the respondent - landlord. Dismissal of the petition was prayed for.