Eviction – Personal Necessity–If the landlord requires the tenanted premises to expand his business, then his need is to be presumed to be a bonafide one.
Eviction – Other properties – Even if landlord does not disclose that the along with other family members are in possession of other properties, it is not a fatal defect

Ms. Ritu Bahri, J. :- Petitioner (tenant)-Kirpal Singh @ Kirpal Chand has filed the present civil revision against the findings recorded by Ld. Rent Controller, Ferozepur and the Appellate Authority, Ferozepur, vide orders dated 06.10.2012 and 22.10.2014, respectively for ejectment of petitioner under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban rent Restriction Act, 1949, whereby he has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity.

2. The respondent-landlord is the owner of portion consisting of one room shown in red colour and the same is part of Court yard, bath room on the ground floor and one room and latrine on the first floor and the same is situated in Mohall Lala Jagan Nath Kakar, Ferozepur City. The petitioner is a tenant in the portion mentioned above on payment of monthly rent of Rs.85/-plus house tax. The respondent sought eviction of the petitioner on the grounds mentioned below:-

(i) The petitioner has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent for the period 01.11.2008 till the filing of the eviction petition.

(ii) Further the respondent required the portion in dispute for the use of shop in question for his son namely Parvesh Garg for running the business of wholesale and retail woolen yarn at Ferozepur City.

3. On the other hand, the petitioner in his reply in the ejectment petition states that the respondent had filed the eviction petition just to pressurize him to enhance the rent to the exorbitant rate of Rs.2000/- per month of which he did not agree. The respondent is in litigation with the petitioner for the last 32 years as several petition against the petitioner has been filed and the same has been dismissed and the whimsical desire of the respondent to settle his son at Ferozepur city for the alleged whole sale business is wrongly projected.

4. After the parties led their evidence, the Courts below ordered the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent to settle his son at Ferozepur city for the alleged whole sale business.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent failed to prove on record the element of need of his son. Further the respondent had placed on record site plan Ex A2 and A3 of the properties owned by him at Ferozepur and thus, the application of the respondent for ejectment of the petitioner should not have been allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the respondent had already shifted his family to Ludhiana and his son was associated in the business at Ludhiana and thus it was only a ploy to get the demised premises vacated by alleging whimsical need of the son of the respondent. The observation of the learned authorities below that the respondent did not own any residential or non residential building except the demised premises is against the record, as he has enumerated various properties at Ferozepur city.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent states that the Courts below has come to a right conclusion by evicting the petitioner from the demised premises, as the respondent need the demised premises for settling his son who was still a bachelor at the time of filing of the eviction petition. Both the Courts below had appreciated the evidence in true terms. The right of landlord to have sufficient accommodation is a matter of his fundamental right.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. The relationship of landlord and tenant is not in dispute between the parties. The question for consideration before this Court would whether the respondent genuinely needs the demised premises for settling his son. Further whether the respondent has some other properties at Ferozepur City.

9. Reference at this stage can be made to the statement of A.W.1-Satish Kumar who reiterated the entire version as mentioned in the petition. In his cross examination he admitted that there is no passage from the shop in question which leads to the residential portion.