P.S.PATWALIA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the tenant against concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority allowing a petition for eviction filed by the landlord.
(2.) THE facts of the case are not much in dispute. Eviction has been sought from a shop located in Patiala Town. The shop was let out to the tenant on 1.8.1985 for carrying on karyana business. The original owner of the shop was one Charan Dass. He is survived by two sons being Jiwan Lal and Raj Kumar and one daughter Nirmala Devi. The present petition seeking eviction of the tenant has been filed by one of the sons Raj Kumar. Raj Kumar had retired as Deputy Controller (Finance and Accounts), from the State of Punjab on 30.09.1993. The petition was filed on 6.11.1997. In the petition Raj Kumar had pleaded that he required the shop in question for his own use as he wanted to start a business in the shop after his retirement. Elaborating his need, he stated that earlier his father had been carrying on the business of selling bamboo/bamboo products in the market. In fact the entire market is selling bamboo products and is known as "baans bazar". He stated that after his retirement he desired to shift to Patiala and re-start the said business which was carried on by his father. In reply the petitioner/tenant contended that in fact the landlord was well settled in Chandigarh. It was pointed out by the petitioner-tenant that in December 1993, the petitioner had purchased a house in Chandigarh being House No. 2189 in Sector 38. The house was a leasehold property. He was well settled in the said house. Apart from that it was contended that the landlord was empanelled as an Arbitrator with Punsup and other agencies and thus was well settled in Chandigarh. Therefore there was no bona fide personal necessity for the said property as pleaded by the petitioner.
(3.) AFTER examining the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on the record, the learned Rent Controller concluded as hereunder :- "13. The question that needs answer is whether in the present set of circumstances, respondent No. 1 was liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute. Although it was proved by respondent No. 1 that after his retirement, the petitioner was working as an Arbitrator and was earning income by means of arbitration cases being conducted by him and also owned certain other property in his name and in the name of his wife. But the sufficiency of income or the petitioner earning income from the arbitration cases or any other sources would not be sufficient to extinguish the bonafide need felt by the petitioner of the shop in dispute. The question to be determined is not whether the petitioner had compelling necessity of the shop in dispute but the test would be that of need of requirement and although even if certain other properties were available with the petitioner, it was for the landlord i.e. petitioner to make choice of the premises which he required for his bonafide requirement and once the landlord had pleaded personal need to run business and had supported his case by appearing as a witness, he could not be disbelieved unless there was material to show and to prove that the need of the petitioner was not genuine. Had there been any mala fide on the part of the petitioner in filing the present application, it is dispelled from the fact that the respondent was in occupation of the shop in dispute since 1985 and no steps had been initiated by the petitioner i.e. landlord to enhance the rent of the disputed premises at any point of time. As such the income being drawn by the petitioner from arbitration cases or from other sources and there being alternate places available for the petitioner to commence business and the fact that he was residing at Chandigarh could not extinguish his right for his bonafide requirement of the property in dispute in case he intended to set up a business as stated by him in association and help of his wife and son and unless any mala fide was proved on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner was within his right to get the premises vacated and it was for the respondent No. 1 to prove any mala fide which he was unable to do so in the present case and further in case a tenant is evicted the possession may be restored to the petitioner in case he does not comply with the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Rent Act and this issue is therefore, decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.";