VIJAY KUMAR Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition filed under Section 5(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act') challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below to the effect that the landlord-respondent Sushil Kumar requires the demised shop for his personal use and occupation.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the landlord-respondent filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act registered as Rent Case No. 1 of 7.1.1998 inter alia on the ground that the landlord-petitioner requires the demised shop for his personal use and occupation. According to the averments made in the petition it was asserted that earlier the father of the landlord- respondent was owner of the demised-shop and on 3.5.1969 he had given it on rent to Laiq Chand father of the tenant-petitioner and proforma respondents 2 to 6. The rent note was duly executed in favour of Jagan Nath father of the landlord-respondent. The rate of rent was Rs. 1,100/- which had been enhanced later. The original tenant Laiq Chand died on 14.7.1975 and the tenancy has been inherited by the tenant-petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 6. However, the tenant-petitioner alone is admittedly availing the tenancy rights and the other legal representatives of the deceased tenant Laiq Chand have not asserted any rights of tenancy. The demised shop is claimed to have been given to the landlord-respondent in a family settlement and on 30.7.1997 a decree has also been passed in his favour by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Malerkotla in Civil Suit No. 290 dated 2.6.1997. After the aforementioned decree there is a relationship of tenant and landlord between the tenant- petitioner and landlord-respondent No. 1. Apart from the ground of non-payment of rent, the landlord-respondent claimed that the demised shop is required for his personal necessity and occupation as he wants to start his own business in it. He claims that his need is bona fide and he has not vacated any shop within the urban area of Ahmedgarh after the commencement of the Act in 1949 nor he owns or possesses any other commercial property within that area.

(3.) ON the vital issue as to whether the petitioner requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation, the Rent Controller found in his favour by observing that the landlord-respondent has been able to prove that he needed the demised shop bona fide to establish his own business and the tenant-petitioner did not succeed in establishing that the landlord-respondent is in possession of any other commercial property or he is running the business. The plea of the tenant-petitioner that he runs the business of selling oil with his father was not accepted because there was no evidence on record. It has been observed that the allegation of partnership of the landlord-respondent with his father could have been easily proved by summoning the record of the oil companies. Similarly, the other plea that the landlord- respondent has sold another shop by sale-deed Ex. RW 5/A dated 5.3.1998 after the filing of the ejectment petition has also not been accepted because the nature of the property sold was not commercial and the same was 20 ft. away from the main market. On the contrary the plea of the landlord-respondent was considered justifiable as he had to purchase brick kiln to sustain his livelihood. The aforementioned findings have been recorded after detailed reference to the evidence produced by the parties.