Pre-amendment eviction petitions from non-residential premises maintainable retrospectively due to Supreme Court on Article 14 violation. Landlord's bonafide need for prime own shops upheld despite rented inferior business, as landlord best judge of suitability.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. These Revision Petitions, arising out of two different eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord but dismissed by the Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority on same grounds, are being decided together by this judgment for involvement of common question of law and facts based on similar evidence led in both matters.

2. Parties, herein-after for convenience, shall be referred as petitioner/landlord and respondent(s)/tenant(s).

3. Both Rent Petitions were filed on 23.12.2009 before the Rent Controller, Kullu for eviction of tenants on the ground that premises in reference are bonafidely required by petitioner/landlord for carrying out his own business.

4. It was claimed by petitioner that after doing graduation in the year 2004, he could not get employment despite making all out efforts and, thereafter, he was compelled to join ITI Shamshi wherefrom he completed course of Draftsman in the year 2005. But even after completing said course, he could not get employment. Father of petitioner had died long ago and he was the only bread earner in the family consisting of his widowed mother and wife. But being unemployed, he had no source of income to support his family and he intended to start readymade garments business as well as Manyari shop in the demised premises, rented out to respondents/tenants Dinesh Kapoor and Vishal Sohal respectively, for earning his livelihood and to support and maintain his family.

5. It was further claimed by petitioner that premises in reference are located in Main Bazar, Bhuntar, which is the heart of business centre of area and these premises are very suitable for business of petitioner.

6. It was stated by petitioner that no other building in the market, except the premises in reference, is owned by petitioner and as it was becoming very difficult for him to earn his livelihood, premises were bonafidely required by him for carrying out his own business and therefore, prayer for eviction of Dinesh Kapoor and Vishal Sohal from the respective rented premises was made.

Civil Revision No. 4083 of 2013

7. This Revision Petition has been preferred against judgment dated 19.10.2013, passed by the Appellate Authority/District Judge, Kullu in Rent Appeal No. 22 of 2013, titled Vineet vs. Vishal Sohal , whereby order dated 17.4.2013 passed by the Rent Controller, Kullu in Rent Petition No. 05 of 2009 titled Vineet vs. Vishal Sohal dismissing the eviction petition preferred by petitioner/landlord, has been affirmed.

8. In this matter, landlord/petitioner has filed a petition for eviction of respondent Vishal Sohal from premises consisting of one shop measuring 29’7” x 10’10” situated in ground floor denoted as Shop No. 21 situated on land comprised Khasra No. 1463, Khata/ Khatauni No.236/350, at Phati Shamshi, Kothi Khokhan, Tehsil and District Kullu.

9. In response to eviction petition, it is stand of respondent that demised premises was rented out to him vide agreement dated 2.11.2006 and thereafter, respondent applied for grant of drug licence from Drugs Control Administration, North Zone, Dharamshala and the same was issued by the Licensing Authority on 31.12.2007. Thereafter, on the basis of