VINOD KUMAR SHARMA Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.l-Suresh Kumar sought ejectment of petitioner and proforma respondent from the demised premises i.e. shop measuring 5 square meter situated near City Police Station, Bichla Bazar, Bhiwani on the ground of non-payment of rent and his personal bona fide necessity to start business of selling fruits and vegetables with his son Tarun, who was also unemployed. The petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller with the observations as follows:-

(2.) Learned Rent Controller also observed that the landlord was having knowledge and notice of the tenancy of the petitioner at the time of purchase of the shop and there was no assurance by the tenant that he will vacate the shop. This reflects mala fide on the part of respondent-landlord that he purchased the tenanted premises and then filed the ejectment petition.

(3.) In appeal filed by the respondent-landlord, Appellate Authority did not agree with the observations of learned Rent Controller. The relevant observations of Appellate Authority in para 22 and 23 are reproduced as follows:-