Eviction–Personal Necessity – Landlord is running his business from tenanted premises in shops which are just opposite to demised premises – Eviction upheld

Ms. Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral):- This order of mine shall dispose of the above two petitions wherein challenge is to the judgment dated 11.08.2014 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar whereby judgment dated 17.07.2013 passed learned Rent Controller, Amritsar was upheld, vide which the ejectment application of the landlords was allowed on the ground of bonafide need.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 1 and 2/landlords (herein after to be referred as ‘the landlords’) are owners of property bearing Shumari No. 2309/10-12 situated in Nai Gali, Katra Singh, Amritsar and have purchased the same for consideration vide two sale deeds dated 30.07.2007 and 31.07.2007 from its owner Smt. Paramjit Kaur.

3. Petitioners were inducted as tenants by its previous owner in private shops Nos. 1 and 2. It was an oral tenancy with delivery of possession. The petitioners had paid rent up March, 2007 at the rate of Rs.400/- per month for both shops and got receipts from its previous landlady i.e Paramjit Kaur. It was mutually agreed between the respondents and previous landlady that rate of rent will increase by 5% in the month of April every year and it was also agreed that they would pay the house tax on the rent value of the tenancy unit. After purchase of property, respondents have become the landlords and there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Petitioners have neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent w.e. 01.04.2007 till filing of the petition at the rate of Rs.420/- per month.

4. The landlords required the demised shops bona fide for their own use and occupation as they are running their embroidery business in five rented shops in the building just opposite the demised shops and they are not in possession of any other shop as owners and they purchased the property only with aim to keep their residence and run their business in their own shops in the demised building.

5. The ejectment petition filed by the landlords was allowed by Rent Controller and was further upheld by the Appellate Authority.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to judgments passed by this Court in cases of Pritam Singh Bakshi vs. Mrs. Sukhdev Kaur and others, 2014 (1) RCR (Rent) 340 and Tilok Tirath Vidyavati Chhuttani Charitable Trust vs. Janak Raj Ahuja, 2013(1) RCR (Rent) 563 wherein the eviction sought on the grounds of personal necessity. The Landlord has not stated that he was not in occupation of SCO No. 3003-3004, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh after the commencement of the Act and had not mentioned the sufficient cause for vacating the said premises either in the petition or in replication and thus his ejectment was found to be rightly dismissed. Learned counsel has further referred to full bench judgment of this Court passed in a case of Banke Ram vs. Sarswati Devi 1977 AIR Punjab 158

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to a judgment passed by this Court in a case of Ram Kishan Dass (deceased) through LR’s vs. Parveen Gulati and others, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 83 where the case of Banke Ram (supra) was also considered and it has been held as under:-

The Full Bench in the case of Banke Ram (supra), succinctly traced out the requirement and need in the averments that the landlord must make specifically as per the ingredients contained in Section 13(b)(c) as they are an essential part of Sub-clause (a). However, it was held that the tenant is not to be taken by surprise and the Court is to give full consideration to the contentions raised by the respective parties. It has further been laid down that it could not be understood that in no circumstances the findings in pleadings the evidence regarding the ingredients envisaged under Sub-sections (b) & (c) cannot be looked into. In the present case, as noticed, the tenants were well aware as to what number of rooms and shops were in occupation of the landlord. There was no other material produced that there was any o