Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.

C.M. No. 21702-CII of 2012

1. Application, filed under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC, for bringing on record the legal heirs of Banwari Lal, the tenant, is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit. The legal heirs as mentioned in para No. 2 of the application are permitted to prosecute the present revision petition.

CR No. 5082 of 2012 Challenge in the present revision petition, which is also barred by 47 days in filing, on account of the death of the original tenant, is to the order of eviction, passed by the Appellate Authority, Hisar dated 28.02.2012, on the ground of bona fide requirement. Respondent No. 1 filed petition for eviction of the ground floor of the shop which was situated adjoining his property, which had been rented out to the original tenant, Banwari Lal @ ` 275/- per month. The ground for eviction was on account of non-payment of rent from 01.11.2000 and on account of sub-letting to Jagdish, without the written consent and approval. The third ground for eviction was for personal use and occupation as he wanted to start a big showroom of D.G. Engine set as well as of generators. The relationship of landlord-tenant was denied and the plea taken by the petitioner and the subtenant was that the shop in question was constructed several years back and they were continuing in exclusive possession of the same. The following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:

"1. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected from suit property? OPP

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

3. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR

4. Relief."

2. The Rent Controller recorded that the shop in question was owned by the landlord and there was no proof of ownership that the shop was constructed by the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant. The rent had already been tendered by them and on the ground of sub-letting, it was found that Jagdish, being the son, was doing business jointly with his father and therefore, it could not be proved that he had sub-let the premises. The question of bona fide requirement of the shop in question was repelled on account of the fact that one agreement was entered between one Kela Devi and Rajesh, the landlord, during the pendency of the petition, which had been filed on 01.01.2001 and the agreement was dated 09.11.2006 and therefore, the bona fide aspect was doubted, in view of the agreement, which was placed on record as Mark-A. Accordingly, the eviction petition was dismissed on 02.11.2007.

3. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who came to the conclusion that where the son is in exclusive possession and the father had parted with the possession of the shop in favour of his son, then only because they were staying together, would entitle the landlord the benefit of ejectment. Reference was made to documentary evidence in the form of a plaint (Exhibit P7), whereby the son had filed a suit against the Municipal Committee and taken a specific plea that the shop was in his exclusive possession for the last several years and he was carrying on business. The plea that it was the suit by the firm was rejected as the firm was not a partnership firm but a proprietorship and even a bank loan had been taken by Jagdish Rai. Accordingly, it was recorded that Jagdish was running the disputed shop without any interference and keeping in view the principles that the sub-tenancy is a private arrangement between the tenant and the sub-tenant and it being a secret relationship, it is difficult for the landlord to prove the said factum, accordingly eviction was ordered. On the question of the bona fide requirement, it was found that the landlord was the best judge of his own choice and admittedly, he was not occupying any commercial building in his possession and neither he had vacated any commercial building and therefore, liable for the possessi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document