SURINDER MOHAN Vs. RAJ KUMAR MEHRA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order Annexure P-1 passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No. III, Shimla in an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC registered as CMA No. 75-6 of 14 is under challenge in the present petition. Learned Rent Controller below has dismissed the application and declined the amendment sought to be made by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-tenant) in reply to the rent petition initially filed.

(2.) The respondents herein are the owners of a shop in building No. 84, the Mall Shimla. The building is non-residential. The shop was rented out to one Trilok Chand, father of respondent-tenant Surinder Mohan for doing tailoring business. The respondent-tenant is presently doing the tailoring business in the shop under the name and style M/S Bhagat sons. The demised premises allegedly is bonafidely required by the petitioners-landlords for expansion of their business. They are running cloth business in this very building under the name and style M/S Nathu Ram and Sons. Adjoining thereto is another shop occupied by Shri Raman Jain. The petitioners-landlords are also running business of readymade garments under the name and style "M/S John Raymond Bright" in a part of the floor situated immediately below Mall Road level. The demised premises and another shop adjoining thereto being situated in the heart of town are stated to be most appropriate and convenient to the petitioners-landlords for expansion of their existing business. The petitioners-landlords allegedly are not occupying any other premises owned by them in the Urban Area of Shimla nor vacated any such premises in the Urban area without sufficient cause within five years of the institution of the petition. The floor above the demised premises allegedly is being used by them for residential purposes. Their requirement, as such, is stated to be bonafide. Besides the respondent-tenant is claimed to be in arrears of rent, therefore, his eviction from the demised premises has been sought on the ground of personal bonafide requirement and also he being in the arrears of rent.

(3.) In reply the respondent-tenant has raised the question of maintainability of the petition and also that all legal heirs of deceased tenant Trilok Chand have not been impleaded as respondents in the petition. On merits, while denying the contentions in the rent petition qua the demised premises bonafidely required by the petitioners-landlords, it has been submitted that not the petitioners but it was late S/Shri Roshan Lal and Raj Kumar were running business under the name and style of M/S Nathu Ram and Sons and also M/S John Raymond Bright in the shop at Mall Road level. Late Shri Roshan Lal later on shifted to Delhi. Recently they occupied two offices behind the shop and another shop after removing the partition. They also took the second shop adjoining to the first shop and removed the partition between the two and then merged the office at the back of the second shop by removing its partition.