- (1.) The tenant is in revision against order of the learned Courts below by which it has been ordered to vacate the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity of the landlords.
(2.) In short, the demised premises is SCO No.28, Sector-26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh which, according to the landlords, was allotted by the Estate Office, Chandigarh on 23.04.1975 to Gurbachan Singh Bahniwal and his three sons, who are the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
(3.) Gurbachan Singh Bahniwal let out the demised premises to the petitioner on 01.04.1978 @ Rs. 8000/- per month which was subsequently increased to Rs. 15,000/- per month. Gurbachan Singh Bahniwal had filed the first petition for eviction of the petitioner on 09.01.1995, inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent, material impairment and change of user. Thereafter, Gurbachan Singh Bahniwal died intestate on 24.09.1996 and his ownership rights in the demised premises were inherited by his three sons and his widow (respondent No.4 herein). The first eviction petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 23.03.2001 which was challenged by way of appeal. There was alleged to be a family settlement amongst the respondents on 11.03.2003 according to which the demised premises fell to the share of respondent No.1 Sarabjit Singh Bahniwal. On 28.08.2003, the appeal filed by the landlords against the order of the learned Rent Controller in the first petition dated 23.03.2001 was withdrawn because in the meantime, there was a notification dated 07.11.2002 by the Chandigarh Administration according to which the premises fetching rent of more than Rs. 1,500/- per month was taken out of the purview of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"]. Thereafter, the landlords had filed a suit under the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy of the petitioner by serving a notice but the said suit was also withdrawn on 14.12.2006 because the notification dated 07.11.2002 was quashed by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the third petition was filed on 15.06.2007 in which it was alleged that the respondent No.1, who is now alleged to be owner of the demised premises, was posted as General Manager of the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank and is now putting up on the first floor of House No.1605, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh as he had to vacate House No.1514, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh in terms of the family settlement. He has a family of his wife and two grown up sons, namely, Simarjit Singh Bahniwal and Bikramjit Singh Bahniwal who are unmarried. The elder son is a law student and the younger son is in Merchant Navy. He has alleged that the demised premises is required for his own business and for the use of his family members. It is also alleged that he is going to retire in the year 2011 and if the demised premises is vacated by the tenant before the date of his retirement, he would take premature retirement so that he may immediately start his business alongwith his wife. The eviction was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 09.03.2010 which was upheld by the learned Appellate Authority on 27.04.2011. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondents-landlords had filed an application for mesne profit in which it was alleged that the rate of rent of the demised premises is around Rs. 8,50,000/- per month but the Appellate Authority had assessed the mesne profits @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per month w.e.f. 09.03.2010 onwards.;