Failure to prove bona fide personal requirement and failure to disclose possession of other accommodation and shop led to the dismissal of the ejectment petition.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders passed by the authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction, Act, 1949, whereby the ejectment sought by the petitioner from the shop on the ground of bona fide personal requirement, was declined.

2. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he has raised construction over plot No. 119 Anaj Mandi, Kurali, after taking loan from the Government. He has let out the room in question to the respondent about 22 years back at monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. He has sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he intends to start his own business therein to augment his income and to live a peaceful life. It has been also pleaded by the petitioner that earlier he filed an ejectment petition against the respondent alleging the premises in dispute as residential building. However, the learned Rent Controller found that the tenanted building is a shop. Even the appeal has been dismissed, therefore, the petitioner sought the eviction of the tenant from the shop in dispute on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. The tenant in the written statement denied the bonafide personal requirement. It was pleaded that the ejectment is sought so as to increase the rent of the shop. The petitioner is also possessing other accommodation consisting of shops, Chabutaras and constructed house and in case, he wants to start his business, he can just occupy the same and start his business.

3. During the course of evidence, the petitioner has produced the certified copy of the judgment in the previous ejectment petition decided on 13.1.1983, wherein it was found that the petitioner is not living at Mani Majra but with his father at Kurali in their ancestral house. It was also found that the building let out to the respondent is a commercial premises consisting of a shop and a godown. In Appeal, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the ejectment petition when the respondent-tenant agreed to pay rent @ Rs. 200/- per month. Respondent has also produced on record the warrants of possession Exhibit R.8. sought by the petitioner in respect of another tenant Ashok Kumar.

4. Both the Courts have dismissed the ejectment petition tiled by the petitioner on the ground that it is admitted by the petitioner that the portion of the shop let out to the respondent is in his possession. Though it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner had two other shops, one near City Police Station and another in the main Bazaar but it has been found that the petitioner is in occupation of the shop adjacent to the tenanted shop. The petition for ejectment was dismissed.

5. The petitioner has vehemently argued that the premises in respect of which he has obtained possession vide Exhibit R. 8 is a part of residential building including the premises in possession of the present tenant and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant for his bona tide personal requirement.

6. A perusal of the ejectment petition would show that the petitioner has not disclosed the fact that some part of the building is in his possession after the same was vacated by the tenant, Ashok Kumar. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that he requires the entire premises for his own use and occupation. There is nothing on record to hold that the building let out to the respondent or the portion which was in possession of Ashok Kumar earlier, is a residential one. In fact, in judgment interparties. The learned Rent Controller has held that the premises in possession of the respondent is a commercial building. Therefore, the argument that the respondent is liable to be evicted, cannot be accepted as the finding has been recorded that the petitioner has another shop in his possession.

7. In view thereof, I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisd