Important Point
In order to get an order of eviction on the bona fide personal ground, the landlord had to aver and prove that he required the said shop for his own use.

Judgment

Tarun Chatterjee, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.This is an appeal by special leave against the Judgment and final Order dated 8th of February, 2006 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 4231 of 2004, whereby the High Court in the exercise of its revisional power had interfered with the findings of fact arrived at by the Appellate Authority which was the final authority on fact and set aside the Order of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dated 5th of August, 2004 directing the eviction of the respondent only on the ground of subletting, which affirmed the Order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on a different ground namely, on the ground of sub-letting.

3.The appellants are father and son and the appellant No.1 (son) is the owner of a shop being Shop No. 142, Village Badheri, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the said shop”) on the basis of a family partition dated 26th of August, 1998 and the appellant No.2 is the landlord of the said shop. Prior to the family partition dated 26th of August, 1998 the father, namely, appellant No.2 was the owner and landlord of the said shop. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are also father and son. The father, namely, respondent No.1 was inducted as a tenant in respect of the said shop at a monthly rental of Rs.500/- per month excluding the electricity charges. The appellants filed an eviction petition against the respondents for evicting them from the said shop inter alia on the ground of sub- letting, for non payment of rent and also for bonafide requirement for the personal use and occupation of the appellant No.1. According to the appellants, the respondent No.1 had sub-let the said shop to respondent No.2, his own son, who is in possession of the same and has been running the said shop under the name of M/s. New Paris Furniture without the consent of the appellants. It was further alleged that the respondent No.1 neither paid the rent of the said shop nor tendered the same as such was in arrears of payment of rent since 1st of October, 1995 till the filing of the application for eviction. The appellants further alleged in the eviction petition that the said shop was required for the personal use and occupation of the appellant No.1. Accordingly, the appellants were constrained to file the eviction petition against the respondents in respect of the said shop when it was found that in respect of the notice, the respondents had failed to vacate and deliver peaceful possession of the said shop to the appellants.

4.The respondents entered appearance and filed a written statement inter alia contending that the eviction petition against them was not maintainable and the personal necessity of the said shop for the use and occupation of the appellant No.1 was also not available and that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the eviction petition. Accordingly, the respondents prayed for rejection of the eviction petition.

5.On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as noted herein above, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

“(I)Whether the respondents were in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01-10-95 and as such were liable to be evicted from demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent?

(II)Whether the rent tendered by the respondent was short and insufficient?

(III)Whether the said shop was sublet by the respondent no. 1 to respondent no.2 without the consent of the appellants?

(IV)Whether the appellant No1 for his personal use and occupation required the said shop?

(V)Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the eviction petition?

(VI)Whether the ground of personal necessity was not available to the appellants as the shop in dispute was not a commercial property?

(VII)Whether the respondents are entitled for counter claim as prayed for?

(VIII)Relief.”

The Rent Controller decided issue Nos. 1, 2 and 7 together and held that the respondents were not defaulters in payment of rent nor they were entitled to