- (1.) BY this order I shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.4613 to 4619 of 2010 as they involve commonality of facts and law. The petitioner, who is landlord, sought the eviction of respondents on the grounds of non -payment of rent and personal necessity. Both the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Court non -suited him. Before this Court the only ground urged is regarding personal necessity which has been negated by the courts below.
(2.) A perusal of the impugned orders would show that the claim of the petitioner has been discarded on the following grounds : i)That he has three shops in the same building i.e. one on the ground floor and two on the first floor and therefore this ought to have been sufficient for the petitioner to meet his requirement or at least sufficient to make a start so as to show his bona fides The petitioner has failed to show that this available space is insufficient for him. ii) That adjacent to the shops is the residential area of theCivil Revision No.4613 of 2010 (O&M) -3 - petitioner where he has a vacant space and a lawn measuring about 1000 square yards and if the need was genuine the petitioner could have utilised this area for commercial purposes. iii) The site plan produced by the petitioner was not in accordance with the floor plan of the building and thus no credence could be given to it. iv) That a comprehensive single petition should have been preferred against all the seven tenants instead of separate petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid reasoning adopted by the courts below is unsustainable in the eyes of law considering the settled proposition of law that the bona fide need of the landlord has to be viewed from his perspective and not from the perspective of the disputant.
(3.) THE respondent however justifies the orders of the courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the relevant material. The rent petitions preferred by the petitioner indicates the need expressed by him. In para 3 (b) he has averred that he requires the shops for his personal use and occupation as he is manufacturing rexin auto mats, insulation mats and bath mats at his factory situated in the industrial area in Yamuna Nagar and that he does not have a sale and display counter in the city of Yamuna Nagar for which he requires the shops in question. He has averred that the shops in his possession on the ground floor and first floor are not sufficient for opening of the intended sale and display counter and thus he has sought eviction of the tenants from the shops which are situated in one row.;