RAM PAL SAINI Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exemption is granted from filing the certified copy of judgment and decree of the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the bona fide requirement of the landlord if not to be established but atleast the same should be apparent from the evidence which is brought on record. In the present case, what has been brought on record is mere urge or desire to get the shop vacated and not a necessity as the shop which is lying vacant adjacent to the one which is sought to be vacated is being used as a car garage by son of the petitioner and that too when he comes to reside with the petitioner during his vacations. On the other occasions, the said shop is lying vacant. That apart, he asserts that the petitioner has admitted that he had been running the same business on an earlier occasion also, which is being sought to be run from the said shop but now his move is to get the shop vacated. Further, the shop which is on rent has been rented out on 6/7 different occasions to different tenants in the last 6/7 years, which also shows that there is no bona fide necessity on the part of the landlord, which would justify his claim as has been made in the eviction petition. The judgments on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable to the case in hand. Prayer has, thus, been made for dismissal of the present petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have gone through the impugned orders but do not find any illegality in the same.