S.B.HAMMERS Vs. RUDRAMANI WALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners (tenants), are aggrieved of order dated 11.09.2015, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, as well as order dated 16.03.2017, passed by the learned Appellate Authority. Jalandhar, whereby the petitioners ejectment from the demised premises has been ordered. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (for short 'Act') was filed by the respondents-landlords seeking eviction of the present petitioners from the part of property no. 15 as detailed in the petition. It is pleaded that the respondents-landlords are the owner of property no. 15 as detailed in the petition. Premises, which are non-residential in nature, were given on rent to the present petitioners about six years prior to the filing of the petition. Eviction of the present petitioners was sought on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent as well as personal bona fide necessity of the respondents-landlords inasmuch as the part of the property let out to the petitioners, was required by respondent no.1 for storing raw material, casting etc. It is stated that respondent no.1 was running a hand tool accessories manufacturing unit, under the name and stye of M/s Apex Industries, which is located about 100 yards from the demised premises in building no. 54, Dada Colony, Jalandhar. It is further stated that the remaining portion of property/building no. 15, which is admittedly in possession of the landlord and not let out on rent, was being used by respondent no.1 for the same purpose, but the same was inadequate and insufficient for meeting his requirements. Hence the petition was filed.

(2.) Petition was resisted by the present petitioners (respondents- tenants). Various preliminary objections were raised and averments on merits were denied. It is denied that the petitioners were in arrears of rent or that the landlords, had any personal bona fide necessity qua the demised premises. They claimed to have invested huge capital and were running a hammer and entire machinery had been installed therein. Landlords, it is stated had not revealed the details of the other properties owned by them. Dismissal of the petition was prayed for.

(3.) Rejoinder was filed. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar:-