VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the tenant- petitioners against the order dated 2.5.2003 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, ordering eviction of the petitioners, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority.
(2.) THE landlord-respondents sought eviction of the petitioners from the demised premises on the averment that vide lease deed dated 15.10.1990 the petitioners were inducted as tenant in the basement and half of Ground Floor portion of SCO No. 3027-28, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh on payment of Rs. 1,500/- as rent. The lease was for a period of 5 years which (sic). The eviction of the petitioner-tenant was on the ground of bona fide necessity raising the plea that Sunil Kumar Sekhri, respondent No. 1 herein had 1/4th share in the demised premises and he was doing his business of chemical and paints in Industrial plot No. 26/5, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh as a tenant under Uttar Kumar Garg as per lease dated 30.9.1993 on payment of Rs. 3,630/- per month for an area of 12' x 50'. The landlord respondent No. 1 wished to run his business from the ground floor and basement portion of the demised premises as he wanted to use the ground floor as a shop while the basement portion as a godown. It was claimed that the accommodation from where the business was being run by Sunil Kumar Sekhri, respondent No. 1 was inadequate and insufficient to meet his demand. It was further claimed that the landlord of Sunil Kumar Sekhri was pressing hard to vacate the premises occupied by him. It was also claimed that as the landlord-respondent No. 1 did not own or possess any commercial premises within the urban area of U.T. Chandigarh nor had vacated any such building in the said urban area without any sufficient cause, the eviction of the tenant-petitioner was sought. The eviction petition was contested, wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was admitted. The execution of lease-deed in the month of October, 1990 was also admitted. However, it was denied that respondent No. 1-Sunil Kumar Sekhri required the basement or the first floor portion of the demised premises for his own use and occupation. It was claimed that one Des Raj was a tenant in another half portion of the ground floor of the demised premises on payment of Rs. 2,500/- per month as rent. The said portion was vacated by him in January or February 1996 and the same was rented out by the landlord to one Giani Ram on enhanced rent. Sunil Kumar Sekhri was stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing shirts and other garments from an Industrial Shed at Panchkula. The first floor of SCO No. 3027-28, Sector 22, Chandigarh, was stated to be already on rent for the last 7/8 years. It was further claimed that initially its rent was Rs. 5,500/- per month which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- per month and at the time of filing of the written statement it was Rs. 7,000/- and M/s. Mahajan Steel Furniture was tenant therein. On these pleadings, it was urged that the landlord had no bona fide necessity qua the demised premises and the petition was an attempt to put pressure on the tenant-petitioner to fulfil his demand for enhancement of rent. It was also alleged that the landlord was running his business from plot No. 26/5, Industrial Area, Chandigarh and, therefore, was not in need of the demised premises. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- "1. Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner requires the demised premises for his personal use and occupation ? OPP 3. Relief." Both issue Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. In appeal findings of the learned Rent Controller were challenged on the grounds that after entering into the agreement in 1990 for a period of five years, the landlord had taken on rent a premises in the Industrial Area, which could have not been done in case the demised premises was required for his own use; in the year 1995 the portion of the ground floor of the same building had fallen vacant which was let out by the landlord to one Giani Ram, which belied his claim of bona fide requirement; the evidence brought on record qua the other tenancy showed that an attempt was made for enhancement of rent; the business was being run by the landlord in the Industrial Area and the premises in dispute was not suited for his business. It was also pleaded that in absence of requirement of entire shop-cum-office or evidence in proof thereof, plea of bona fide requirement cannot be accepted.
(3.) THE learned lower Appellate Court rejected the contention of the learned counsel for the tenant by coming to the conclusion that before the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harbilas Rai Bansal v. State of Punjab, 1995(2) RCR(Rent) 672 : 1996(1) RRR 69 : AIR 1996 SC 857 the commercial building was not open to eviction on the ground of personal necessity and in that situation, entering into fresh lease with existing tenant could not be a ground to defeat the claim of bona fide requirement which was duly established.;