SURINDER GUPTA, J. - (1.) This is a revision petition filed by M/s. P.K. Store and Varinder Kumar tenant in shop situated at Nabha Gate, Main Bazar, Sangrur against his ejectment ordered by learned Rent Controller, Sangrur vide order dated 30.05.2014 and affirmed by Appellate Authority vide order dated 19.05.2016.
(2.) Landlord-Rajeev Kumar Goyal (respondent) filed petition seeking ejectment of petitioner(s) from demised premises for the personal bona fide necessity of his son Dr. Mohit Goyal, Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, who wanted to start a clinic in the demised premises. Landlord-respondent averred that his son is presently providing preventive and promotive health care services in the Subsidiary Health Centre, village Sahoke, Block Sangrur under an agreement with Zila Parishad for a period of three years and date of agreement commenced from 13/14.02.2008. The said agreement can be terminated by Zila Parishad or by his son with three months' notice in writing. Landlord-respondent while elaborating the need of his son regarding the premises averred in para 2(C) of the petition as follows:- "C) That the applicant requires the shop in dispute and the chobara upon the same on the first floor for the bona fide need of his said son namely Dr. Mohit Goyal, who requires the same for use as a clinic to practise Medicine, Obstetrics and Surgery besides facility of laboratory, Medical Store and room for indoor patients also as he has no other suitable place for the same within the MC limits of Sangrur, except the shop mentioned in the heading of the application and the chobara upon the same on the first floor which is in possession of Shri Krishan alias Shri Ram s/o Sh. Banarsi Dass, r/o Sangrur as tenant. The shop in dispute and the said chobara marked as IJKL shown in the site plan annexure A are most suited to said son of the applicant for his said clinic etc. as the same are located in the heart of the city near to the Bazar, Bus Stand, etc. Said chobara is of the applicant and is under tenancy of Shri Krishan alias Shri Ram s/o Sh. Banarsi Dass r/o Sangrur. The applicant is filing a separate application for the eviction of said Shri Krishan tenant also from the said chobara on the same ground of bona fide need of his said son Dr. Mohit Goyal as is mentioned in this application. It may be mentioned here that the shop in dispute and another room on the back of said chobara marked as MNOP in the attached site plan annexure A, which is in possession of the applicant are not sufficient for the clinic, etc. of his doctor son Mohit Goyal. It is further pertinent to mention here that no part of the building marked as ABCD and EFGH including said living rooms on the ground floor marked as Z, Z1, Z1 as shown in the site plan annexure B are also neither suitable nor sufficient for the said need of the son of the applicant."
(3.) Revision petitioners denied the personal bona fide necessity of demised premises as projected by landlord-respondent inter alia pleading that landlord-respondent is in possession of double-storey building, showroom, shops etc. at Dhuri Road, Sangrur and has let out his property to different tenants. Son of landlord-respondent was employed and need of the demised premises has been projected by him on false grounds with ulterior motive to eject the petitioner. It was pleaded that landlord-respondent and his family, who owns considerable property in city including two kothies, situated in Guru Nanak Colony, Sangrur, which were got vacated and then let out, could use the said premises for running a hospital by his son as said kothi bearing house no. 293-B, Guru Nanak Nagar, Sangrur is a big one and sufficient for running a nursing home. It was also averred that the demised premises is not suitable for the purpose of opening clinic, laboratory, medical store and room for indoor patient as alleged because it is a small shop and its location is not suitable for the purpose for which ejectment of petitioner was sought, rather Dhuri Road, Sangrur is most suitable place for opening a clinic where landlord-respondent owns property. Giving reasons for filing ejectment petition, the petitioner alleged that he was asked by the landlord-respondent to enhance rent of the demised premises, which he refused as a result of which this petition has been filed.;