RANJIT SINGH,J - (1.) THE petitioners are tenants of a shop owned by the respondents. The respondents filed an ejectment petition before the Rent Controller, Fazilka seeking ejectment of the petitioners on various grounds, like arrears of rent, sub-letting, personal use, material alterations, negligent use of the building leading to its impairment and the same being unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Two grounds out of these found favour with the Rent Controller to direct ejectment. The Rent Controller found that the landlord was able to establish that the shop was needed for his personal use and that it was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Appellate Court also up-held the finding returned by the Rent Controller and that is how the petitioner-tenants are in revision before this court.
(2.) WHILE up-holding the plea of the respondents in regard to personal use of the shop, it is noticed that respondent-landlords had duly pleaded that they required the shop in dispute for expanding their business for whole sale of cloths. Reference is also made to the statement given by Sandeep Kumar that turn over of his cloth shop is around Rs. 10 lacs and that he is in a financial position to expand the business. He has further testified before the court that the prices had gone very high and in order to maintain his family, he would need more income for which he would require to expand his business and the possession of the demised shop for the purpose. Considering this to be sufficient to indicate bonafide need of the respondent-landlords, the ejectment order is maintained by the Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not made any submission so far as finding returned by the trial Court on the ground of shop being unfit and unsafe for human habitation is concerned. He submits that the finding returned by the court on the ground of personal necessity is not right or justified. The learned counsel would refer to Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and others, 1988(1) RCR(Rent) 625 : (1988)3 Supreme Court Cases 131. On the basis of this judgment, the counsel says that the evidence can be re-appreciated while exercising revisional jurisdiction by this court. He further says that as laid down in this judgment, subsequent events can also be taken into consideration by the court to mould the relief. The subsequent event, which, the learned counsel wishes to be taken into consideration is that one of the landlord, who is co-owner of this shop, namely, Lajwanti is no more and she has died during the pendency of the proceedings. From this, the counsel would urge that the need, which may have been appreciated by the courts below, would now require re-consideration as now respondent Sandeep Kumar is left alone and he is a bachelor.
(3.) MERELY because a person is a bachelor does not mean that his need, which was earlier in existence, would vanish. The death of a co-owner, who is his mother, would also not be such a factor which can make the need to expand the business to cease or become non-existent. This business premises, that is the shop, ejectment from which of the petitioner was sought would still remain and can be maintained by respondent Sandeep Kumar even if he is left alone. His plea for expanding the business would still remain and can not come to an end with death of his mother. Strangely, it is also submitted that the respondent is bachelor and hence would have no need to expand business. There is nothing on record to indicate that he would remain so and is not intending to get married. This argument can really not be appreciated. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners deserve to be rejected and these are hereby so rejected.;