KAMLA RANI Vs. BANWARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner tenant is aggrieved of judgment dated 15.12.2018 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala whereby judgment dated 21.04.018 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Nabha has been set aside and eviction of the petitioner has been ordered from the premises in question.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that the premises in question i.e. a shop forming a part of the plot as described in the petition was rented out by Ram Singh father of the respondent/Banwari Lal to Jatinder Kumar husband of the present petitioner (since deceased) on 01.01.2007 at a monthly rent of '5,000/- per month. Tenancy was oral. It was settled that Jatinder Kumar would pay the electricity, water charges besides house tax apart from the rent. It is further pleaded that Ram Singh, father of the landlord borrowed '20,000/- from Jatinder Kumar and writing was executed between the parties to secure the loan, which was cleared after adjusting the same towards the rent of the shop. Original writing was destroyed by Jatinder Kumar in the presence of Ram Singh. The shop in question was transferred by Ram Singh in favour of Banwari Lal/respondent by virture of transfer deed dated 11.12.2009. Hence, he became the owner and landlord of the shop in question. Rent was paid by Jatinder Kumar to Banwari Lal. Receipts thereof were issued to Jatinder Kumar. Rent for the premises was paid upto 31.01.2011 and it was claimed that no rent was paid thereafter. To the contrary, a suit for permanent injunction on false premise was filed by Jatinder Kumar which was pending before the court of Civil Judge, Nabha. Jatinder Kumar unfortunately died on 15.05.2014. Present petitioner, it is claimed, stepped in the shoes of the tenant. In order to pressurise and harass the landlord, FIR No. 65 dated 15.05.2014 under Section 306 IPC was registered against the landlord at the behest of the present petitioner i.e. wife of Jatinder Kumar. Landlord's wife as well as college going daughter were also arrayed as accused in the FIR. It was claimed that the present petitioner having stepped in the shoes of Jatinder Kumar was in arrears of rent since 01.02.2011. Eviction was sought on the ground of arrears of rent as well as for personal bona fide necessity of the landlord. It is stated that the landlord was married to Prem Lata who was carrying the business of flower pots etc. in the adjoining shop. The demised premises were required for settling the elder son of the landlord who had cleared his matriculation examination but was idle. It was revealed that the landlord owned another shop measuring 18 square yards but the same was not sufficient for running the business of grocery (Kiryana) for his son. Another residential plot measuring 153 sq. yards and plot measuring 233 sq. yards besides residential house measuring 150 square yards (in which they were residing) was revealed to be owned by the petitioner. It is specifically averred that the shop in question was most suitable for running grocery (kiryana) business by the landlord's son. Furthermore, as residence of the landlord was adjacent to the shop in question, it would be extremely convenient for the petitioner's son to run his business from the shop in question. Despite being requested, tenant refused to vacate the premises. Hence, the petition was filed.

(3.) Present petitioner (respondent in the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller) resisted the petition. It was denied that rent of the shop was '5,000/- per month. It was claimed to be '1,500/- per month. Liability of the tenant to pay the house tax was denied. It is claimed that rent up to 28.02.2014 was paid. Landlord in fact wanted to evict the tenant and wanted enhancement of rent. Present petitioner alongwith her husband were stated to be harassed and threatened for vacation of premises. Suit for permanent injunction was filed. Being fed up and annoyed of the threats meted out by the landlord, husband of the present petitioner committed suicide and FIR in this respect stood registered. It is denied that the shop was required for settlement of the landlord's son who was alleged to be owner of other property as well. Dismissal of the petition was prayed for.