R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's revision and it has been filed by Dr. J.S. Sodhi son of Inder Singh, against the judgment dated 23.3.2001 passed by the appellate authority, Chandigarh, which affirmed the order dated 29.8.2000, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh who ordered the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises on the ground of bonafide need.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Mela Ram respondent-landlord filed the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as applicable to Chandigarh for the eviction of the petitioner-tenant Dr. J.S. Sodhi from S.C.O. No. 809, Sector 22-A (Ground Floor), Chandigarh and the case set up by the landlord is that he is the landlord and owner of SCO Nos. 809-810 situated in Sector 22-A, Chandigarh. The petitioner-tenant took the ground floor of SCO No. 809 on monthly rent of Rs. 5500/- in addition to water and electricity charges, for general trade. There was another tenant on the ground floor of SCO No. 810. The landlord specifically alleged that SCO Nos. 809-810 are joint. Further it has been alleged by the respondent-landlord that he earlier filed ejectment application on the ground of non-payment of rent, sub-letting, change of user and materially impairment of the value and utility of the building and the same was allowed on 22.5.1996 on the ground of materially impairment of the value and utility. The tenant filed an appeal against the said order. Further the case set up by the landlord was that earlier the ground of personal necessity of non-residential building was not available to him and as such this ground he could not take in the earlier ejectment petition. Now there is a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the basis of which non-residential building can be got vacated on the ground of personal necessity. Hence the present petition. Note : Perhaps the landlord wants to avail the benefit of the famous judgment of Harbilas's case, 1995(2) RCR(Rent) 672 (SC). To continue with the pleadings of the landlord it is averred by him that he requires the demised premises for him and for the requirement of his son. He wants complete ground floors of SCO No. 809-810 for personal use and occupation. He would also file the ejectment application against the other tenant who is in occupation of the ground floor of SCO No. 810, which is adjacent to the demised premises. Highlighting his need the landlord- respondent alleged that at present he is carrying on his business in a small Booth No. 32, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, along with another Booth No. 31, which is owned by his wife. Both the Booths are very small and these are not serving the well established business of the petitioner. It is alleged that respondent-landlord's daughter-in-law also owned a small garage No. 2, Sector 22-D, and garage No. 5 which is on rent with the landlord at a monthly rent of Rs. 350/-. That accommodation is being used as a small godown. The entire accommodation does not serve the purpose of the landlord who is well established businessman and as per his status and flourishing business, he requires a complete ground floor of the demised premises including the portion in occupation of another tenant on the ground floor i.e. SCO No. 810. It was further averred that at present the son of the landlord is doing the business along with him. The landlord wants to settle his son independently for the purpose of his business. After getting the premises vacated he would sit himself on the demised premises and his son will look after the business already being run in Booth No. 31 and 32, which are too small in which even 4/5 customers cannot stand at one point of time. Sufficient accommodation is available only in SCO No. 809-810 which includes the demised premises. It is further alleged by the landlord that he does not own or occupy any other non- residential premises within the urban area of Chandigarh except Booth No. 32 and Garage No. 2 which is owned by his daughter-in-law and booth No. 31 which is the property of his wife. The entire accommodation is insufficient for his needs. Therefore, he wants that tenant should be evicted from the demised premises.
(3.) NOTICE of the petition was given to the tenant who filed the reply and denied the allegations. The tenant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant. However, he pleaded that ground of personal necessity is not available to the landlord as the premises in question is a commercial building. The premises were taken on rent for general trade and the business is being run from the very first day of the tenancy. It was also pleaded by the tenant that number of time the portions of the building in question fell vacant and the same were let out by the landlord and this would show that no ground for personal necessity was ever availed of. The tenant denied the other averments of the landlord and prayed for the dismissal of the ejectment application.;