M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS petition filed by the tenant-petitioner, namely, Hira Chand, under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act'), challenges the view taken by both the Courts below directing his ejectment from the demised premises on ground of personal use and occupation of the landlord-respondent No. 1.
(2.) FEW facts may first be noticed. Mrs. Neelam Aggarwal wife of Rakesh Kumar and Smt. Kailash Wati wife of Balwant Rai, were owners of property bearing No. B-IV-100, Ghas Mandi, Ludhiana. On 6.9.1986, first and second floor of the building was rented out to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 900/- for the purpose of residence and business. Shri Sukhdev Raj Jain, landlord- respondent No. 1, was occupying one shop on the ground floor of the said property as a tenant. On 28.6.1995, Smt. Kailash Wati sold her portion out of the aforesaid property in favour of Shri Sukhdev Raj Jain, landlord-respondent No. 1, and he became owner/landlord qua tenant-petitioner Shri Hira Chand. On 16.11.1995, the landlord-respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 13 of the Act in the Court of Rent Controller, Ludhiana, seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner on the ground that he failed to tender the arrears of rent with effect from 1.7.1995. The other ground raised was that the landlord-respondent No. 1 required the demised premises for his own use and occupation claiming that he has to take rest in the demised premises during the day time. It was also claimed by the landlord-respondent No. 1 that being President of various educational institutions at Ludhiana, a number of persons visit him, therefore, he requires the demised premises for his own bona fide necessity. He further claimed that his house is also situated at a distance of 4-5 Kms. from his shop and due to ill health it is not possible for him to go to his residence for rest during working hours. Moreover, doctors have also advised him to rest during the day time. The tenant- petitioner contested the application and after adducing evidence by the parties, learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, decided Issue No. 1 regarding non-payment of rent in favour of the tenant-petitioner as he has paid entire arrear of rent and costs, amounting to Rs. 4,750/-, in the Court on 18.1.1996. The other issue as to whether the landlord-respondent No. 1 requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation has been decided against the tenant-petitioner. The concluding part of the finding on Issue No. 2 recorded by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, reads thus :- " The residential accommodation of the petitioner is at the distance of 5/4 Kms from the said shop. The respondents have not denied this fact, so it is not possible for the petitioner to visit his house and take rest there during the working hours. Moreover, the petitioner is a 60 years old person and it is not possible for such an old person to shuttle between his shop and residential accommodation, just for the sake of taking rest. The occupation of one shop at the ground floor by the son of the petitioner is no ground to reject his plea of bona fide requirement. Ultimately, I hold that the petitioner Sukhdev Raj Jain has bona fide requirement for his personal use and occupation. Hence, I decide this issue in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."
(3.) LEARNED Rent Controller, Ludhiana, accordingly, allowed the rent petition filed by the landlord-respondent No. 1 and direction was issued to the tenant-petitioner to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the demised premises within three months from the date of passing of order dated 5.8.2003.;