HEMANT GUPTA,J - (1.) THE tenants are in revision petition aggrieved against the ejectment order passed by the learned Appellate Authority on the ground that the tenanted premises are required for bona fide use and occupation by the landlady and her family members.
(2.) THE respondent herein sought ejectment of the petitioners from Shop-cum- Flat No. 37, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh on ground that she is an old widow who has two sons, Vinod Kumar, one of the sons, was working in the Punjab National Bank from where he has taken premature retirement and relieved on 13.1.2001. The said son of the respondent wants to start a business and for the said reason the premises in question is required for their use and occupation. The ground floor will be required for shop whereas first and second floor are required for residence. It is the stand of the petitioners that ejectment petition is not maintainable as the building is non-residential building and the ground of personal necessity was not available to the landlady and the necessary ingredients were lacking in the petition. It was denied that the landlady wants to settle her son in the business and that, in fact, the landlady wants to enhance the rent of the premises in question. The landlady has appeared as a PW1 and produced lease deed Exhibit P-1. Vinod Kumar, son of the landlady, has been examined as PW2 who has deposed that he has no other non-residential premises in his possession where he could set up his business. He produced order dated 13.01.2001, Exhibit P-2, on the basis of which he was relieved from service. The tenant appeared as RW4, who deposed that the first and second floors of the demised premises were never used for the purposes of godown and that the premises under their tenancy is not required by either by the landlady or by her son for use and occupation. The tenants also produced copies of previous judgments Exhibits R-1 and R-2 whereby previous tenant Daya Singh was ordered to be evicted.
(3.) LEARNED Rent Controller found that the landlady is able to prove that she requires the premises in question for use and occupation of her son to run a business of stationery in the shop after his retirement from the bank and that she has no other accommodation available with her where her son can start his business. Therefore, the need of the landlady was termed as bona fide. However, ejectment order was not passed in favour of the landlady on the ground that she has been able to prove her personal necessity qua the shop portion but has failed to prove the change of user of upper portion and consequently dismissed the petition as tenancy cannot be splitted. However, in appeal against the said judgment, the Appellate Authority found that the entire Shop-cum-Flat is treated as non-residential premises and the contention that the tenancy cannot be split up was found to be erroneous and unsustainable. Consequently, the order of ejectment was passed against the petitioners herein.;