RAJIVE BHALLA,J - (1.) THE petitioner, impugns orders dated 31.1.2000 and 18.5.2004 passed by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, respectively, directing the petitioner's ejectment and the dismissal of his appeal.
(2.) THE respondents/landlords, filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner, from the tenanted premises, on the grounds that the petitioner was in arrears of rent with effect from 1.5.1994 and the demised premises, as well as the adjoining shop portion i.e. SCO No. 836 Sector 22-A, Chandigarh, were required for their personal use. It was averred that respondent no. 1, a Non Resident Indian, born to Indian parents residing in Manila, Philippines graduated as an Electrical Engineer in the year 1980 and thereafter lived and worked in Australia upto 1991. He decided to return to India, to set up a business for sale, service and maintenance of electric and electronics goods. As he could not find suitable premises, he decided to invoke his right to seek ejectment, of the tenant, on the plea of a bona fide necessity to occupy the tenanted premises for setting up of a business. The petitioner, filed a written statement, controverting the facts, and asserted that the plea of necessity was mala fide, as the landlords wanted to increase the rent to Rs. 30,000/- p.m. and for that purpose had made a request to the tenant, in the presence of Sudhir Thapar, B.M. Gupta and Ashok Kumar. As the petitioner expressed his inability to enhance the rent, the landlords threatened him with eviction and thereafter, filed the instant petition for ejectment on a false plea of bona fide necessity. On the basis of the aforementioned pleadings, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the petitioners require the demised premises for their personal use for business purposes ? OPP 2. Whether the tender made by the respondent is legal and valid ? OPR 3. Whether the instant petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPR 4. Relief."
(3.) THE issue with respect to arrears of rent was not pressed, as the tenant petitioner tendered arrears of rent. As regards issue no. 2, the learned Rent Controller held that the landlords prayer for the petitioner's ejectment was based on his bona fide necessity to occupy the tenanted premises, for starting a business. The petitioner's ejectment was, therefore, ordered. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority, upheld the order passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal.;