PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. KULDIP SINGH RATHOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (tenant) is aggrieved of order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar as well as judgment dated 20.08.2019 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar whereby ejectment of the present petitioner has been ordered.

(2.) Briefs facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that the respondent - landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short - 'the Act') seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal bonafide necessity. It is pleaded that the landlord, is the owner of the demised premises, which was originally given on rent to Kartar Kaur wife of Puran Singh who is the mother of the tenant, for a monthly rent of Rs. 175/- per month. Subsequently, a rent note was executed by Kartar Kaur on 04.04.1991 containing terms of tenancy. The present petitioner had earlier filed suit for permanent injunction against the landlord claiming himself to be in possession of the demised premises as tenant. It is, thus, pleaded that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. It is further pleaded that arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2012 have not been paid. Personal bonafide necessity was pleaded by the landlord to the extent that he required the shop for the use and benefit of his son namely Harpreet Singh, aged about 33 years. It was pleaded that Harpreet Singh who had completed his Bachelor of Arts, PG Diploma in Computer Application, wanted to start his own computer and allied business from the shop, to earn his livelihood. It is further stated that the shop forming part of the residential property was suitable for the computer business. Moreover, the demised building, it is stated, consisted of two shops in front of the house. One of the shops is stated to be in possession of the respondent - landlord where he is stated to be taking tuitions to earn his livelihood. The second shop is in possession of the tenant, who is sought to be evicted. It is specifically pleaded that the landlord was not in possession of any other shop except the one from where he is taking tuitions within the urban area concerned and that neither his son Harpreet Singh was in occupation of any other commercial shop in the said area nor they had vacated any such premises without any sufficient cause, after the commencement of the Act.

(3.) Present petitioner resisted the petition taking preliminary objections to the extent that the respondent - landlord had other similar properties within the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. It is denied that the tenant was in arrears of rent or that the landlord had any personal bonafide necessity. It is alleged that the landlord's son was already working with some company and earning handsomely. It is further denied that the landlord was taking any tuitions in the adjoining shop. Dismissal of the petition was prayed for.