Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 21.2.2011 of the Rent Controller, Khanna, ordering his eviction as well as the judgment dated 1.10.2011 of the Appellate Authority whereby his appeal against the aforesaid order of eviction, has been dismissed.
(2.) The respondent landlord filed an ejectment application against the petitioner on the averments that he was owner of the demised premises which were taken on rent by the petitioner in the year 1990 from his father for running a tailoring shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- besides house tax. The rent was enhanced later on to Rs. 1100/- per month. After some time petitioner changed user of the tenanted premises and upon being objected to he filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent. Eviction of the petitioner was sought from the demised premises on the following ground:- 1. That the petitioner has neither paid nor tendered house tax and rent w.e.f.1.4.2006 @ Rs. 1100/- per month. 2. That the petitioner has made material additions and alterations in the property and impaired the value of utility of the property. He has made permanent fittings and fixtures. 3. That the demised premises are bona-fide required by respondent for his own use and occupation. Respondent has two sons (one married and one unmarried) and he wants to start business for himself and for his sons in the demised premises. He has also three daughters, out of which two are married and one is unmarried. 4. That the petitioner has changed the user of the demised premises from tailoring business to manufacture Punjabi Jutti and thereafter started business of PCO/STD/Photostat etc. without prior permission of the petitioner.
(3.) Upon notice petitioner filed written statement contesting the averments made by the respondent landlord. However, relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was admitted. It was further averred that petitioner never started the business of tailoring in the demised premises rather with permission of father, of the petitioner, he started business of PCO, STD and photostat etc. in the year 2000. He was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 1100/- per month to the respondent and house tax was being paid to the Municipal Council directly. In fact, the respondent wanted to enhance the rent and has also tried to disconnect the amenities provided in the premises. It was denied that petitioner has made additions and alterations in the demised premises. It was further denied that he was in arrears of rent etc. It was also averred that there was no change of user of the premises. Bona fide requirement was also denied stating that sons of respondent were already doing service. Denying other averments, dismissal of the petition was prayed for.;