J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE landlord Sant Lal purchased the shop including the demised premises from its original owner in the year 1961. The tenant was already inducted by the original owner. The application for ejectment was filed on 6th of December, 1979 alleging that the landlord required the rented land for his own use and was not occupying in the urban area of Kaithal for the purpose of his business any other rented land nor he has vacated any such rented land without sufficient cause. It was also alleged that the tenants have placed their khokas over the rented land which became a cause of nuisance to the landlord as well as to the neighbourers. The ejectment application was contested on the plea that the tenanted premises are not rented land as alleged nor the same are required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation. According to the tenant the landlord is already in occupation of much more area than his requirement. The application has been filed only to put pressure on the tenants to agree to the enhancement of the rent. The allegations of nuisance because of the khokas were denied. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the ground of personal necessity was not available to the landlord because the 'khokas' of the tenants is part of 'phir' attached to the shop of landlord. It is thus part of the business premises. It was further found that this khoka was in existence much before when the petitioner purchased the shop of which the same formed a part. Even the petitioner Sant Lal as AW5 admitted that when he purchased the shop in dispute in the year 1961 the khoka in dispute was in existence in the premises of the shop. The learned Rent Controller also found that the landlord has clearly failed to prove his requirements much less bonafide. Consequently, ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority affirmed the said finding of the learned Controller with the observations that "Shri Sant Lal petitioner while appearing as AW5 admitted that when he purchased the shop in dispute in the year 1961 the khoka in dispute was in existence at that time. This thus shows that the land shown in the red colour in the site plan was not given on rent. It also lends plausibility to the contention of the respondent that what was rented out to them was a part of the shop and the same was rented out for the business purpose. It, therefore, cannot be presumed by any stretch of imagination that any land was rented out." As regards the bonafide requirement of the landlord the learned appellate authority found that the element of need is, therefore, missing in the present case and the requirements of the landlord cannot be held to be bonafide. Consequently, the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application was maintained. Learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner submitted that the tenant while appearing as R.5 admitted that land was rented out to him. He also referred to Exhibit R.1 the copy of the judgment dated 2.6.1978 by virtue of which the suit filed by the tenant against his landlord Sant Lal was disposed of in view of the compromise between the parties. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the suit itself, in the heading of the plaint, it was for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering over the suit land. Thus argued the learned counsel that the demised premises was the rented land and not the khoka as such which has been found by the authorities below. As regards the bonafide requirement, he submitted that since the business has increased and, therefore, the landlord was in need of more place for unloading the foodgrains etc. which came to his shop. Moreover, the khoka in front of the shop was an obstruction in his business and, therefore, the requirement was bonafide.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the tenant-respondent submitted that what was rented out was the khoka and not the rented land as such and, therefore, no application for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement was maintainable. In any case, the landlord has failed to prove his bonafide requirement as he did not produce his accounts to show that his business has increased meanwhile.;