CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. N K. VIJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition directs challenge against order dated 23.4.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh whereby appeal against order dated 11.5.2011 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh has been allowed and the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from tenancy premises i.e. House No. 322 Sector-21-A, Chandigarh on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the respondent.

(2.) Sh. N.K.Vij, the respondent filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short "the Act") for eviction of the petitioner-Central Bank of India (in short 'the bank") from tenancy premises on the grounds inter alia that the petitioner changed user of demised premises by converting the same into a residential one as against using it for running a training school for its employees; the petitioner has sublet the demised premises to Sh. R.N.Swami, Zonal Manager without consent of the respondent; the first floor of the house is in dilapidated condition and it has diminished the value and utility thereof and the respondent requires the demised premises for bona fide use and occupation. It is averred that family of the respondent consists of four married daughters who are settled at different places in India. They occasionally visit the respondent alongwith their families. The respondent requires the premises for his personal use and occupation in the evening of his life. The wife of the respondent is owner of SCO Nos. 3033 and 3034, Sector-22-D, Chandigarh. The first and second floors of aforesaid SCOs were got vacated from the tenants by wife of the respondent. A business centre was started at the said floors which is being managed by the respondent and his wife. The respondent is undergoing treatment in PGI and his wife is getting treatment from Fortis Hospital, Mohali. They want to settle in Chandigarh, city beautiful which is free from pollution and environment friendly for old age people. The respondent has no other residential accommodation within urban area of Chandigarh nor he had vacated any such building after commencement of the Act.

(3.) The petitioner filed reply and raised preliminary objections inter alia that the eviction application is not maintainable and the same is bad for misjoinder of parties. It has denied all the averments on the basis whereof the respondent has sought eviction of the petitioner.