- (1.) THE petitioner is a tenant in Shop No.36, which has been adequately described in the rent petition, situated in village Badheri (Sector 41), Chandigarh. The monthly rent claimed by the landlords was Rs.700/ - including water and electricity charges. Prior to the filing of the instant rent petition the respondents/landlords had initiated a civil suit against the petitioner for the reason that at relevant point of time the provisions of the Rent Act were not applicable to the said village. In the civil suit the eviction was sought on the ground that the petitioner was a defaulting tenant who had not cared to pay the rent to the landlords. During the subsistence of the civil suit the provisions of the Rent Act were made applicable to the village where the demised premises are situated. The civil suit was dismissed in view of subsequent developments and the respondents thereafter filed the instant petition for eviction of the petitioner on two grounds (i) nonpayment of rent, and (ii) bona fide necessity. Although the rent was paid by the petitioner rendering this ground of eviction redundant, yet it is noteworthy to mention that the petitioner had categorically conceded in his testimony that he had not paid the rent for substantial period. The respondents/landlords had pleaded that they had agricultural land in the village which was acquired by the Chandigarh Administration and that had left them without any vocation. The respondents had also pleaded that they had grown up children who were also without any work and, therefore, the shop was required by them to set up a dairy business and this shop in particular was most conducive for the same.
(2.) THE petitioner had denied these averments and had stated that the respondents are in possession of four shops and thus if they intended to start a business, they could have easily done so in some other shop and there was no necessity of getting the shop occupied by the petitioner vacated. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the rent petition but the Appellate Authority reversed the findings resulting in filing of the instant petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that during the pendency of the rent proceedings an adjoining shop belonging to the respondents fell vacant but instead of utilising it for their own purpose they had let it out to someone else and this itself shows that the bona fide need of the respondents is a falsehood. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if it is assumed that the respondents/landlords wanted these premises in particular, which are in his occupation, the landlords should have explored the possibility of offering the vacant shop to him but such an exercise was never resorted to. In support of his plea reliance has been placed on Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal, 2001 2 RCR(Rent) 130 wherein in para 17 it has been observed as follows : "17. Coming to the case on hand, the judgment of the High Court clearly bears out the position that the lower courts had failed to consider the requirement of the section regarding availability of reasonable accommodation in occupation of the landlord -appellant. As noted earlier, at the time of filing the suit, one vacant shop -room was in occupation of the landlord and in course of the proceedings one more shoproom, one being vacated by the tenant, came in his occupation. The High Court has found that the landlord could easily make arrangements for starting the shop which his son Pradeep Kumar Gupta intends to open in the vacant shoprooms. If any adjustment was necessary, then the tenant -respondent could also have been offered an alternate shoproom for his occupation. No such step was taken by the landlord during all these years. During the hearing of this appeal, we made a suggestion to the learned counsel appearing for the landlordappellant, whether he is willing to permit the tenant -respondent to occupy the shoproom presently in his (landlord) occupation so that he may have a block of four shoprooms for the business of himself and his son. The learned counsel stated that the landlord, who was present in the Court, declined to accept the suggestion." The respondents, on the other hand, contend with reference to the testimony of the petitioner himself that there is a tacit admission of the respondents and their children being without any vocation and the feasibility of the shop being utilised for dairy business which is the intended purpose of the landlords. It is thus contended that once the petitioner himself admits that the respondents are without any vocation, their plea that their children need to be settled in the shop, which is conducive for a dairy business, has been rightly accepted by the Appellate Authority. The respondents have also by way of an application placed on record a sale deed by which one of the shops had been sold by the present respondent No.1 from where the respondents want this court to infer that the recital contained in the sale deed regarding respondent No.1 being the sole owner of the shop which has been sold, the properties belonged separately to the respondents who are brothers.;