INDERJIT SINGH Vs. DARSHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision that has been filed by the petitioner- tenant seeking to challenge the order dated 09.09.2014 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby the eviction petition filed by respondent No.1-landlord was allowed, as well as order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner- tenant was dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent No.1-landlord herein filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short 'the Act') averring therein that the father of the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 6 and husband of respondent No.2 herein namely Joginder Singh took the tenanted premises on rent from respondent No.1-landlord for running his business at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- per month and Rs. 100/- per month as house tax. It was submitted that said Joginder Singh, unfortunately expired on 26.04.2009 and after his death, the petitioner herein started running the business in the tenanted premises. It was alleged that the petitioner did not prove to be a good tenant and stopped making the payment of rent and thus was liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent along with house tax, as well as on the ground that the tenanted premises is required by respondent No.1 for personal necessity of his son and daughter-in-law, who are BHMS and further doing M.D. It was further averred that both the son and daughter-in-law of respondent No.1 want to open their own clinic in the tenanted premises. It was stated that adjoining shop with the tenanted premises is already with respondent No.1 and by removing the intervening wall, both the shops shall be used for the purpose of clinic as well as testing lab. It was submitted that the shop in possession of respondent No.1 is insufficient for opening the clinic and there are bright chances to run the clinic in the tenanted premises.

(3.) Upon notice, petitioner-tenant appeared and contested the petition by filing his written statement, in which preliminary objections were taken as to maintainability of the petition and that the petition is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties, as respondent No.2 to 6 have no right, title or interest in the tenanted premises. Respondents No.2 to 6 did not turn up before the Rent Controller and they were proceeded against ex parte by an order dated 15.03.2014.