- (1.) The tenant is in revision against the order of the Appellate Authority by which order of the Rent Controller has been reversed and the eviction order has been passed.
(2.) In brief, the landlady filed the petition for eviction of the petitioner from the ground floor of property bearing no.71, situated at East Mohan Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar on the ground that he is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.08.1996 @ Rs. 575/- per month; made additions and alterations without permission and demised premises is required for bona fide use and occupation of her unemployed son. It was also averred that neither the landlady nor her son possessed or vacated any such other property in the urban area concerned. The eviction petition was allowed on 18.11.2006. The petitioner challenged that order by way of appeal but it was dismissed on 15.12.2009. The petitioner filed CR No.618 of 2010 which was allowed by this Court and the case was remanded back to the Rent Controller, Amritsar but this time, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition vide its order dated 07.06.2012 but the Appellate Authority has allowed the eviction petition vide the impugned order dated 14.08.2014 on the ground that the demised premises is required by the landlady for her use and occupation.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that sons of the landlady did not appear in the witness box to allege that they wanted the demised premises to start their business rather they are living in South Africa, therefore, there was no bona fide necessity. However, the Appellate Authority has observed that:- "In my opinion, the order passed by the learned Rent Controller is not a perfect and valid order which was passed on 07.06.2012, whereas the order dated 18.11.2006 passed by Sh. Harjeet Singh, the then learned Rent Controller, Amritsar is perfect and valid order and there seems to be no illegality in the said order. Moreover, the learned Rent Controller has given detailed reasons while passing order dated 07.06.2012 vide which the petition filed by the appellant-applicant was allowed and as per order dated 30.11.2010, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, the rent at the prevailing market rate upto May, 2012 has been assessed and prevailing market rate of the rent of the tenanted premises has been held to be Rs.1,500/- per month which stood paid on 04.06.2012 by the respondent. Moreover the premises/shop is required for business of her sons namely Jaswinder Singh and Harpreet Singh who are doing nothing at present and are idle/unemployed and they want to do the business in the demised shop to earn their livelihood i.e. the business of Karyana and bakery products, as per the version of the landlady/appellant-applicant. Accordingly, I hold that the need of the demised shop is bona fide for the appellant-applicant for her as well as for her said two sons. Moreover the landlord would be the best judge of his requirement and while establishing case of the bona fide of requirement, the tenant cannot dictate terms or question the bona fide of the landlord. Landlord has complete freedom in the matter. The proposition of law is well supported and corroborated in case law referred in Parikshat Suri & others Vs. Ashok Kohli and another, 2009 2 RCR(Rent) 87, Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery and Co., 2000 1 RCR(Rent) 135, Makesh Chand Vs. Firm Hindu Khandan Mustarka Kripa Ram and Sons, 2006 1 RCR(Rent) 420, Jaharuddin Vs. Mohammed Dukaman, 1993 2 RCR(Rent) 63 and M/s Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Com. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal and Ors., 2005 2 RCR(Rent) 436. Accordingly, I hold that the landlady is required the shop in dispute for her bona fide requirement. Moreover, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has been admitted fact in this case. The appellantpetitioner has fully established on record that she required the premises in dispute for her personal necessity and her necessity is also proved on record bonafidely. Accordingly, I hold that the learned Lower Court of Sh. Jagdeep Sood, Rent Controller, Amritsar has wrongly held that the appellant has failed to prove her case, whereas the appellant-applicant has fully proved and established her case. In view of my above discussion, I hold that the learned Lower Court has wrongly decided issues No. 1 and 7 in favour of respondent, whereas on the other hand, the appellant-applicant has been able to prove all these issues. Accordingly, the findings given by the learned Lower Court of Sh. Jagdeep Sood, Rent Controller, Amritsar on all the issues stands reversed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is accepted and the findings of the learned Lower Court stands reversed being wrong and incorrect. Accordingly, it is held that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller is not a well reasoned and perfect order. So, the same is ordered to be reversed by accepting the appeal filed by the appellantapplicant, holding that the application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act filed by the applicantappellant succeeds and the same is allowed, with costs.";