The landlord's genuine necessity for eviction and the ability of a co-owner to seek eviction on behalf of other co-owners.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) - The petitioner is impugning the order dated 04.02.2019, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, whereby, the rent petition filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the Act'), of the respondents-landlord, has been accepted and eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises bearing private No.12, forming part of property Khasra No. 926, situated at Abadi Kataria, Court Road, near New Rialto Cinema, Amritsar, has been ordered.

2. The case as pleaded by the respondent-landlord in the rent petition filed by him, may be noticed as thus:-

The respondent being Non Resident Indians (NRI), had been living in the Germany. They became owners of the property forming part of Khasra No. 926 min, situated at area Abadi Kataria, Court Road, Near Rialto Cinema, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the building') in the year 2000-2001, after purchasing it along with other co-sharers vide different title-deeds. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant by the previous owner in one of the shops bearing No. 12 (hereinafter referred to as 'the demised shop'), forming part of the above-said building. The tenancy of the petitioner-tenant was oral as no rent note was executed in respect thereof and it was accompanied by a simple delivery of possession. The respondents stepped into the shoes of the previous owner and became landlords after purchasing the said building, since there was relationship of landlord-tenant between the petitioner and the previous owner of the demised shop. The said fact was duly intimated to the petitioner-tenant by the respondents/landlords. The respondents/landlords were wanting to return to India after their long stay in the Germany, as they wanted to set up a hotel-cum-restaurant business in the said building. They, therefore, required the entire building including the demised shop to set up their business after converting it into a hotel-cum-restaurant. Even though the respondents/landlords requested the petitioner/tenant to vacate the demised shop time and again, but in vain. The respondents/landlords, besides taking the ground of bona fide necessity, also pleaded in their rent petition that they had now been owners of the building for more than 5 years and they were neither in possession of any other building nor had they got any other property vacated after the commencement of the Act.

3. Upon being put to notice, the petitioner-tenant put in an appearance and filed leave to contest, which was allowed. Thereafter, he filed his written reply. In his written reply, he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and asserted that the number of the shop in his possession was 02 and not 12. He further asserted that the building was not required by the respondent for starting any business.

4. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the Rent Controller allowed the rent petition and ordered the petitionertenant to handover the vacant possession of the shop to the respondents-landlords. Thus, this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that more than 30 different properties were purchased by the respondents vide separate sale-deeds, therefore, all such properties could not be considered as one single property.

6. Learned counsel further submits that since the respondents were owners of other properties also they could very conveniently start and establish their business in those properties.

7. Learned counsel also submits that the respondents had admitted during their cross-examination that they had let out two shops to two different tenants, who were running a liquor store and an electrical appliances shop, respectively. Furthermore, learned counsel submits that the respondents had not even applied for the requisite permission and licence to run a hotel, which was clearly indicative of the fact that they had no such plans of starting a hotel, and it was just a malicio