VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of ejectment passed against the petitioner by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide his order dated 4.10.2004 and affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 7.4.2006.
(2.) THE respondent-landlord had filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 herein from the tenanted shop on the following grounds :- "(i) The respondent No. 1 has sublet the premises in dispute to respondent No. 2 for consideration and without written consent of the petitioner. (ii) The respondent No. 2 has been doing the work of 'Rafugiri' in the shop in dispute and he has also been selling the shawls in the shop in dispute. The respondent No. 2 is in exclusive control of the portion shop in dispute. (iii) The respondent No. 1 has made material additions and alterations in the shop in dispute thereby diminishing the value and utility of the same. Earlier there was a 'Varandha' in front of the shop, but the respondent No. 1 has merged the said 'Varandha' in the shop by raising on both the sides of the 'thara'. The shop with the 'Varandha' was having much more value and utility. (iv) The petitioner requires the shop in dispute for his own use and occupation for starting his own business. Earlier the petitioner had been running a 'dairy' in mohalla No. 31 in the tenanted premises. However, the petitioner had to close down his business as Cantt. Board had passed a resolution to shift the dairies outside the civil area of Cantt. The petitioner has further alleged that he has not been occupying any other non- residential building for starting his business nor he has vacated any building without any sufficient cause. The petitioner has further alleged that his son was running the business of general merchant in the shop No. 1 in Mohalla No. 27 of Jalandhar Cantt. But later on his son had joined the service. The petitioner could not carry on both the business i.e. dairy and the shop, as such; the said shop was closed by the petitioner. The said shop was converted into two small shops which were rented out to M/s. R.K. Tailors and a painter. However, the petitionr had to close down his dairy business in pursuance of resolution passed by the Cantt. Board. Now the petitioner is without any work for the last about two years. The shop in dispute is suitable for starting a general store, as it is a corner shop. The petitioner requires the said shop for starting his own business." The petitioner-tenant contested the petition and tendered the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.9.2000 to 30.11.2000 along with interest and costs and raised a plea that rent up to August, 2000 had already been paid to the petitioner. The allegation of sub-letting was denied and it was claimed that he was running a Dry-cleaning shop and he engages a darner as and when he feels any necessity for darning garments if desired by the customer. He also denied the fact of personal necessity as pleaded by landlord-respondent.
(3.) THE learned Rent Controller held the tender to be short and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 514 : AIR 2002 SC 2004 directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 740/- to the petitioner within a period of 30 days. This was done by the petitioner therefore, the ground of ejectment on account of non-payment of rent was held to be not available to the respondent-landlord.;