- (1.) The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 12.12.2005 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Nabha and the order dated 26.4.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority, Patiala vide which a petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as, 'the Act') by the respondent-landlord was allowed and the petitioner-tenants were ordered to be evicted and a first appeal filed against the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority found in favour of the respondent-landlord on the ground of bonafide personal necessity.
(2.) The relevant facts as emerge from a reading of the orders of the Courts below and the pleadings of the parties are that the shop in dispute was let out to Mohan Lal father of the petitioners over four decades ago. After the death of their father the petitioners have been in possession of the shop in dispute as tenants. The landlord retired from Government Service on 30.11.2001 after serving as a Junior Engineer in the PWD (B&R) Branch. It was his case that he wanted the shop in question for his own use and occupation to run the business of selling electrical goods. He has placed on record document Ex.P6 to show that he has a National Trade Certificate from an I.T.I. as a trained Electrician. He has also placed on record Ex.P7 which is a certificate issued by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab to the effect that he was qualified to act as Electrical Supervisor. In his petition the landlord had disclosed that behind the shop in question and adjoining the same there are two shops also owned by him which were in possession of Ishwar Dutt and Yousaf Khan as tenants. He has stated that he had already filed petitions for eviction of the said tenants as well. It was further his case that he had not vacated any non-residential property within the municipal limits of Nabha where the shop is located after coming into force of the Act. It was his case that while he wants the shop in question for his own use to sell electrical goods, in the two shops which are on the back of the demised shop he wanted to settle his two sons who were unmarried. The tenants contested the petition denying the fact that there was any bonafide personal necessity of the landlord.
(3.) After examining the controversy, the Rent Controller held in favour of the landlord after holding as hereunder :- "18. In view of these legal propositions we find that petitioner has supported his version in witness box fully. He has not concealed any fact that after institution of present suit, two other shops were also got vacated. But he has categorically proved that these shops have been given to his sons. Ld. counsel for the respondent has argued that petitioner does not require demised shop any more. But this plea can not be accepted. It is evident from site plan that shops got vacated have been handed over to his sons and these shops have got less commercial value and utility than the demised shop in question. These shops are at the back of demised shop and open in the street. Demised shop open in the main market, Nabha. Therefore, petitioner who is qualified electrician if want to set up his own business in this very shop is nothing un-natural and un-reasonable. His sons are unskilled. So opening of shop by petitioner in demised shop by he himself is not altogether un-reasonable and faoiful idea. Rather argument of counsel for respondents are quite amusing. It is submitted that he has got no need of demised shop. His sons are unmarried. He is a retired person. I have considered the arguments. Respondents are no body to suggest that petitioner after his retirement from service should sit idle or take 'Sanyas'. There is nothing wrong if petitioner starts his own business and enhance his income after retirement. Very fact that his both sons are un-married makes his need more forceful. By opening business in main market would not only enhance income of petitioner but also would upgrade their social and financial status in the society. 19. Stand of the respondents is staggering. In reply, it has been averred that petitioner simply want to harass the respondents and want to get enhanced rent. But as RW1 respondent Balwinder Kumar has deposed that he want to evict the respondents only to let it out again on higher rent. These two pleas are different. Rather petitioner has got strong full proof case of his personal necessity." These findings of the learned Rent Controller were affirmed by the Appellate Authority.;