GURESH KUMAR Vs. KHEM RAJ SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Sec. 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, the petitioner has challenged order dtd. 16/6/2023, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Court No.II, Shimla, H.P., in terms whereof, the Rent Petition filed by the respondent herein for the vacation of the demised premises was allowed as well as against judgment dtd. 18/3/2023, passed by the Court of learned Appellate Authority, in terms whereof, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of eviction has been dismissed.

(2.) The eviction petition was filed by the respondent-landlord hereinafter referred to as the landlord on the ground that the premises in question was a shop and a godown beneath the shop being used for non-residential purpose which was in the occupation of the tenant and that the same was bona fidely required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation for running the business. The case of the landlord was that he was running a business of Kiryana (General Merchandise) in a rented shop at Totu. He wanted to expand his business in the said field and wanted to add other packed items to increase his business, for which he required additional accommodation for opening a modern business centre/showroom. Therefore, as per him, the demised premises were required for the said purpose after the eviction of the tenant.

(3.) The rent petition was inter alia resisted on the ground that the plea of the landlord that the premises were required on the ground of bona fide requirement was wrong. The tenant in fact denied that the demised premises were transferred in the name of landlord by his mother in a family settlement. He denied that the accommodation was required for the purpose of opening a modern business centre/showroom and it was stated that the accommodation, which was, in the possession of the landlord was sufficient and the petition stood filed just to have the premises vacated from the landlord.