- (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Rajpura dated 7.5.2011 and that of the learned Appellate Authority by which the eviction of the petitioner has been ordered from the demised premisses which is a shop.
(2.) THE respondent/landlord filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner on the following grounds : - (1) Non -payment of rent with effect from 1.8.2004 and house -tax from 1.4.2005 till 31.3.2006. (2) Impairment of the value and utility of the shop by converting it into a store. (3) Personal necessity to set up stationery business for his son Charanji Lal and grandson Jatin Kumar. It was pleaded that the petitioner himself has constructed and purchased a shop and therefore, can easily shift his business to the premises which belong to him.
(3.) THE petitioner as a tenant disputed the averments and tendered rent for the disputed period which largely rendered this issue irrelevant. On merits, it was pleaded that the respondent/landlord is in occupation of two shops one of which is adjacent to the shop in question where he is running his business along with his son. There are two more shops in occupation on the other side of his house and that personal necessity expressed by the respondent is not genuine. It was further pleaded that the respondent had got one shop vacated from a doctor and the same is in possession of the landlord where he can easily carry on his business for his son and his grandson. The petitioner admitted that he had purchased the shop from one Partap Kamlesh and Jagdish Kamal about 10 years back where his son is carrying on his business. The learned Rent Controller accepted the petition ordering eviction of the petitioner by accepting the plea of personal necessity. The Appellate Court did similarly. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the personal need expressed by the respondent/landlord is not borne out from the facts of the case as the shop adjoining to the demised premises is lying vacant which is conceded by the respondent in his cross -examination but he tried to cover it up by saying that his son Krishan Kumar comes at night to conduct business therefrom. He has further stated that the respondent sold a shop just prior to the filing of the petition which would indicate that the need is not bona fide for had it been so, he could have utilized the said shop for his own personal use.;