- (1.) The landlords, who had failed in their plea for personal necessity in both Courts below are in revision before this Court.
(2.) The property in dispute is situate in Gurgaon and the contention of the petitioners was that they were living at Pritampura, Delhi and they are planning to shift to Gurgaon. It is an admitted case that the demised permise was a part of larger building. It was the landlord's contention that the remaining building consisted of three rooms besides an area marked 'C' in the plan near the stair case and they were not sufficient for their living. The petitioners wanted to show proof of their step for having opted to shift to Gurgaon by reference to the fact that a business had been started and a sale tax register had been taken under the M/s Aggarwal Sales Corporation and one of the petitioners had to actually travel from Pritampura to Gurgaon every day to conduct the business and return to Delhi to take care of the female members of the family. The petitioners would describe themselves as members of a large Hindu family with mother, four brothers and four sisters. It was in evidence that two of the sisters had been married and two sisters were still studying. All the four brothers were adults and some of them had also been married.
(3.) While the landlords' contention was that the property in the occupation of the tenant actually comprised of two rooms, a latrine and a kitchen, they would not have the benefit of kitchen unless the tenant was evicted. This contention of the landlord was resisted by the tenant by stating that the landlords, who claimed to be representatives of Rajinder Kumar, had actually filed a petition for eviction on the ground of personal necessity, which was dismissed and the appeal had also been dismissed. It was stated in the counter that further proceedings were pending in higher forum. The tenants, therefore, contended that the petition was barred by the principle of res judicata. They were also contending that the landlords were not having business in any of the remaining portions and the sales tax assessment number had been taken only subsequent to the filing of the petition. They had also secured a report from the local commissioner to show that there was no business being run at the demised premise. There was a general denial of the landlords' requirement and it was contended as a principle of general law that a mere desire to shift will not be sufficient and a genuine need had to be established to find a cause of action for ejectment.;