RAJIVE BHALLA,J - (1.) CHALLENGE in this revision petition is to an order, dated 11.1.2007, passed by the learned appellate Authority, Chandigarh, accepting the appeal, filed by respondent No. 1-landlord and reversing the order, dated 29.11.2004, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh.
(2.) THE landlord-respondent No. 1 is admittedly owner of shop-cum-office No. 284,Sector 35-D, Chandigarh, and in possession of the first and second floors of the building. The rear portion on the ground floor is occupied by the petitioner as a tenant initially @ Rs. 600/- per month and eventually increased to Rs. 1,300/- per month excluding water and electricity charges. The landlord filed a petition for ejectment on the grounds that the petitioner had sublet the premises to respondent No. 2 for running an STD booth, without any authority from the landlord, the petitioner had made alterations in the premises, which had materially impaired the value and utility of the building, and that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation, as after living for over 30 years in the West, he was fed up with the western way of life and had decided to shift to India and to start a business in the portion, occupied by the petitioner. Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant filed a written statement, asserting that the premises in dispute are a shop-cum-office. The first and second floors cannot be used as a residence, as a shop-cum-office can only be used for the purpose of an office. It was further asserted that the landlord's requirement is mala fide, as the ejectment petition was instituted so as to pressurize the petitioner to increase rent. The landlord is residing abroad and is well settled in his business. As regards the plea of sub-letting, it was stated that respondent No. 2 is the petitioner's daughter. The entire premises are in his physical possession, though the STD connection is in his daughter's name. It was denied that any cabin had been constructed. Respondent No. 2 in her written statement denied the plea of subletting and the existence of a cabin. The landlord filed a replication reiterating the assertions in the ejectment petition.
(3.) THE learned Rent Controller framed the following issues : 1. Whether respondents are liable to be ejected from the tenanted premises on the grounds taken in para 1(b), 1(c) of the petition ? OPP 2. Whether petitioner is in bona fide need and requirement of the tenanted premises? OPP 2A. Whether the premises in dispute is required by the petitioner for his personal requirement ? OPP 2B. Whether the respondent has made material addition and alterations in the premises in dispute ? OPR 2C. Whether the premises in dispute is liable to be evicted on the ground of sub-letting by the respondent ? OPR 3. Relief." ;