- (1.) The petitioner is owner and landlord of House No. 289, Sector 10, Chandigarh, which has two portions, one is known as 'Northern Collage', which is situated on the right side of the plot and another is on the 'Western Collage' which is situated on the left side of the plot. The premises known as 'Northern Collage' is towards House No. 290, Sector 10, Chandigarh and is in possession of respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. The family of the petitioner consists of himself, two sons and two married daughters. The sons of the petitioners are running their business at Jammu. One of the sons of the petitioner Shri H.S. Khorana is dealing in selling of furniture and furnishing accessories etc. at Jammu. It was claimed that in view of the present circumstances in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the son of the petitioner wanted to shift the entire business along with his family to Chandigarh. It was further claimed that he was maintaining his links in Punjab and Haryana and even otherwise because of the adequate education and medical facilities at Chandigarh, the son of the petitioner wanted to shift to Chandigarh. His one daughter is married and the other daughter, who is aged 19 years, was studying in B.A. and one son was studying in 6th class. His brother along with his family were said to be settled in other house and was having good business around Chandigarh. It was also claimed that once the business was established/settled, the entire family was going to shift to Chandigarh slowly. The petitioner and his family members have no other house in their possession as owner within the urban area of Chandigarh. The petition was, therefore, filed for eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of personal bonafide need. It was also claimed that the petitioner's son has already opened an office for starting his business from portion of House No. 35, Sector 5, Chandigarh. It was also mentioned in the petition that earlier a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the 'Act') was filed by the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity, but the said petition was dismissed for non-production of medical evidence. It was further claimed that the present requirement of the petitioner was subsequent and recent and that too on account of requirement of his son. It was alleged in the petition that the respondent never paid the rent in time and was said to be in arrears of rent from 1.1.1987 to 31.5.1988. It was further claimed that the rent was paid in Court only for 12 months and therefore, the tenant was liable to be evicted on this ground also.
(2.) It was also pleaded that the petitioner has not vacated any residential premises without sufficient cause after commencement of the Rent Act and does not own any residential house in Chandigarh. It would be relevant to reproduce the pleadings qua personal necessity which read as under :- "5. That keeping in view the present circumstances in Jammu & Kashmir the son of the petitioner wants to shift the entire business along with family to Chandigarh. He is already maintaining his business contacts in Punjab and Chandigarh, even otherwise because of the good education and medical facilities at Chandigarh the son of the petitioner wants to shift to Chandigarh along with his business. The son of the petitioner is having one married daughter, one daughter aged 19 years studying in B.A. and one son who is school going and is studying in 6th class. The brother and his family in other house is settled, who is already having good business around Chandigarh, then the entire family is going to shift slowly, so that the business is not affected immediately. The petitioner and his family members i.e. sons etc. have no other house in possession as owner or otherwise within the urban read of Chandigarh, therefore, the petitioner requires the present premises for their personal use and occupation for immediately shifting the residence and the business. 6. That the petitioner's son have already opened one office initially for starting their business from a portion of House No. 35, Sector 5, Chandigarh. 7. That previously also a petition under Section 13 was filed on the ground of personal necessity of the petitioner himself, but on account of the non- production of the doctor the said petition was dismissed in the year 1987. However, the present petition has nothing to do with the outcome of the result of the said petition. The present requirement of the petitioner is subsequent and recent that too on account of the requirement of the son of the petitioner."
(3.) The petition was contested by the respondent-tenant by raising a preliminary objection that the petitioner had earlier instituted an eviction petition for ejectment of the respondent on 24th July, 1985 and the same was dismissed on 27th of July, 1987. The other petition instituted on 24th of February, 1988 was dismissed on 10th of December, 1992. It was claimed that earlier petitions on the ground of personal necessity stood dismissed. The present petition being barred was not maintainable. The present petition was said to be mala fide and was alleged to have been instituted to pressurize the respondent to increase the rent. It was further claimed that the premises was not required by the petitioner for his personal use and occupation. However, the relationship of landlord and tenant as well as description of the property was admitted. The factum of Shri H.S. Khorana having business of furnishing accessories at Jammu was admitted and it was claimed that he was permanently settled and was not dependent on the petitioner. It was also claimed that the petitioner along his sons was having huge property in Jammu and further the petitioner had not taken any steps to shift his business to Chandigarh.;