- (1.) This is tenant's revision petition challenging order of eviction dated 9.11.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby his eviction was ordered from the demised premises and judgment dated 16.8.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that the eviction of the petitioner has been ordered on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent-landlord. The ground of personal necessity as set out by the respondent-landlord reads as follows:- "That the petitioner requires the tenancy premises for her husband's use and occupation bonafidely. The husband of the petitioner Sh. Harjit Singh is running a business of Signglow Board and the space which is in possession of petitioner's husband is so small that he cannot run his business properly. The petitioner's husband is preparing the Sign Boards of big sizes. The business of the petitioner's husband may progress more in case the shop in dispute get vacated. The petitioner is not owning any other property within the urban area of Ludhiana nor she has ever got vacated any property on the ground of personal necessity."
(3.) While dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, against the order of eviction, the Appellate Authority has observed as under:- "13. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court has wrongly passed the order on the basis of presumption, whereas, there were no pleadings that the demised premises is appropriate property for the landlord is considered, but the same is without any merit in it. In the petition, it has been specifically claimed that space, which is in possession of petitioners husband is small and he cannot run his business properly. The suit property is more suitable to her and for the business of her husband. So there was no presumption, rather, it was specifically claimed by the petitioner/landlord that premises in dispute is most suitable. The perusal of suit plan Ex.P1 reveals that demised premises is adjoining the shop in possession of respondent/landlord. So, the same is most suitable to expand the business. Moreover, it is for the landlord to decide, which property is bona- fidely required by him and tenant is no one to dictate, which/other property can be more suitable as the landlord is the best Judge of his requirement. 14. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant, that need is not bona-fide and alternative accommodation was available is considered, but the same is without any merit in it. In view of evidence of Raghbir Kuar, it is proved that tenancy premises is required for use and occupation of her husband and space, which is in possession of petitioner and her husband is small and he could not work properly. Due to paucity of space, the business of husband of petitioner could not flourish more. Same is the evidence of PW Harjit Singh, who proved the fact that tenancy premises is bona-fidely required by him and his wife for their own use and occupation and due to paucity of space, he cannot run his business properly and he has to place sign boards on the said site and employees of Corporation are harassing him. The perusal of site plan Ex.P1 reveals that property, which is in possession of present appellant is adjoining to the shop already in possession of landlord. So, the need of appellant is bona-fide one. During cross examination, the appellant admitted that husband of petitioner is preparing sign boards of sizes 30/40 feet in length. The work of husband of petitioner is progressive. The Municipal Corporation is not allowing the husband of petitioner to place the goods on road side. The site plan Ex.P1 is correct one. Size of sign boards, which are prepared by husband of petitioner is much larger than the size of shop in possession of petitioner. So, need of landlord is bonafide one as he wants to expand the business. The contention of counsel for appellant that one shop adjoining to demised shop is lying vacant as admitted by Raghbir Kaur is also not tenable, as the same is not adjoining the shop in possession of landlord and it is for the landlord to decide, which tenanted premises is more suitable to him/her. So mere fact that some other property is lying vacant, which is in possession of landlord is no ground to divest the landlord from claiming possession on the ground of bona-fide necessity when necessity is bona-fide one. 15. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that there was concealment regarding earlier rent petition is considered, but the same is without any merit in it. The perusal of copy of eviction petition Ex.PX reveals that same was regarding arrears of rent along-with house tax and electricity charges, but present petition is filed on the ground of arrears of rent and on the ground of bona-fide necessity. As per settled proposition of law, the landlord can file as many as eviction petitions for each and every cause of action. With each default in arrears of rent, a fresh cause of action accrues in favour of landlord to seek eviction and in present case not only the cause of action arose for filing fresh eviction petition due to non payment, rather there was fresh cause of action on account of bona-fide necessity of landlord. So, mere non mentioning of earlier eviction seeking eviction on the ground of non payment of rent do not amount to any material concealment to debar the respondent from seeking eviction.";