SHOBAN LAL AND SONS Vs. DEEPAK KHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-tenant is aggrieved of judgments dtd. 12/1/2016 and 18/2/2017 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana and the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, respectively, whereby his eviction from the demised premises i.e., a shop has been ordered.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that, respondent-landlord Deepak Khera filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the 'Act') seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises i.e., a shop as detailed in the petition. It was pleaded that the shop in question was purchased by Deepak Khera vide registered sale-deed dtd. 29/9/2009/5/10/2009. Present petitioner was stated to be a tenant under the previous landlord. After purchase of the premises, the present petitioner was stated to have become a tenant under the subsequent purchaser by operation of law. Tenancy was recreated in the month of September 2009 and rent was settled at the rate of Rs.6,500.00 per month, besides, house tax and electricity charges. The same was an oral tenancy. Ejectment of the present petitioner was sought on account of non-payment of arrears of rent as well as personal bonafide necessity of the landlord for his own use and occupation as he wanted to set up his own office in the tenanted premises. Respondent-landlord claimed to be working as a Rice Agent and desirous of expanding his business. It was further stated that he did not own or possess any other such commercial building within the concerned urban area neither had he vacated such property after the commencement of the Act.

(3.) Petition was resisted by the petitioner-tenant. Various preliminary objections were raised in the reply. Averments on merits were controverted. It was however admitted that the premises were taken on rent at the rate of Rs.225.00 per month inclusive of house tax from the previous landlords, namely, Tirath Ram, Parkash Chand, Kanwar Lal, Prem Sagar and Janak Gupta. Rent upto 30/9/2009 stood paid at the rate of Rs.225.00 per month to one of the landlords, namely, Prem Sagar on behalf of all the landlords against proper receipts. It was stated that no notice regarding change of ownership on the basis of the alleged sale-deed was ever given to him. Claim of oral tenancy at the rate of Rs.6,500.00 was denied. It was denied that the respondent-landlord required the premises for his own bonafide personal necessity. It was claimed that the respondent did not disclose that he was already running his office alongwith his father Subhash Chander in the portion at the backside of the demised shop, which was sufficient for him. The respondent-landlord was stated to be a mere agent, not a trader of rice and therefore, he did not require any office or godown. Dismissal of the petition was prayed for.