HARBANS KAUR Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-landlords are aggrieved of order dtd. 28/9/2005 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, whereby judgment dtd. 20/9/2004, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, has been set aside and the petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act (for short 'Act'), filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that petition under Sec. 13 of the Act was filed by the petitioners seeking eviction of the respondent-tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal bona fide necessity. It was pleaded that the shop as detailed in the petition was given on rent to the respondents at the rate of Rs.1200.00 per month. It was explained that the shop in dispute was given to the respondents as a licensee vide license deed dtd. 1/2/1998 at the rate of Rs.14,400.00 per annum with license fee payable at the rate of Rs.1200.00 per month. Respondents filed a suit seeking injunction against the petitioners i.e. Civil Suit No. 118-A of 18/3/1993 which was decided by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hoshiarpur on 5/9/1997 holding that the respondents were tenants under the petitioners. Thereafter, present petition under Sec. 13 of the Act was filed seeking eviction of the tenant/respondents. It was pleaded that the respondents were in arrears of rent. Moreover, personal bona fide necessity was pleaded. It was stated that the petitioner no.2 was a medical practitioner carrying on with his practice at Nawanshahr. He had taken a shop on rent from Rajinder Kumar Chopra. Notice dtd. 11/3/2000 had been served upon petitioner no.2 by Rajinder Kumar Chopra to vacate the shop at Nawanshahr. Rajinder Kumar Chopra had sought eviction of the premises for his own personal requirement. Petitioner no.1 was claimed to be a qualified midwife (LSMF- Licentiate in Medicine and Surgery). It was further stated that petitioner no.2 has his house at Mirzapur Dhaliwal near Bullowal which is about a half kilometer from Tanda Hoshiarpur road. Petitioners sought to shift their practice to Hoshiarpur i.e. near their ancestral village. It was stated that the petitioners did not own or possess any other like premises in the urban area of Hoshiarpur neither had they vacated the same.

(3.) Petition was contested by the respondents. Various preliminary objections were taken in the written statement. Averments on merits were controverted. It was pleaded that the son of petitioner no.2 was running a dental clinic at Nawanshahr. Petitioners had a residence at Rahon Road, therefore there is no question of their shifting to Hoshiarpur. It was denied that the respondents were in arrears of rent. The present petition was filed only after the suit for injunction filed by the respondents was decided. Petitioners claimed the respondents to be licensees but their said plea had been rejected in the suit for permanent injunction filed by the tenants. Rent was being offered to the petitioners, but they refused to accept the same. Dismissal of the petition was sought.