The landlord's proven purchase of the premises and bonafide necessity for starting his own separate business justified the eviction order.

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

CM-11207-CII-2022

Prayer in the application moved on behalf of applicant-respondent No.1, is for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased-petitioner.

Notice of the application.

Learned counsel for the non-applicant-petitioner accepts notice.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and the applicants as mentioned in paragraph 3 of application are ordered to be impleaded as LRs of deceased-petitioner in order to pursue the present case.

Amended memo of parties be taken on record.

Registry to do the needful.

CM-11208-CII-2022

Prayer in the application under Section 151 CPC moved on behalf of applicant-respondent No.1 is for directing the LRs of the petitioner to deposit the mesne profits @ Rs.22,000/- per month for use and occupation of the shop during the pendency of revision petition.

At this stage, learned counsel for applicant-respondent No.1/landlord submits that on instructions, he does not intend to press the present application, however, reserving his rights to move again in the changed circumstances.

Dismissed being not pressed.

Main case:

1. By way of the present revision petition, challenge has been made to the judgments dated 24.04.2014 and 30.11.2015, passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar as well as by the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, respectively, whereby the eviction petition filed by respondent No.1-landlord has been allowed.

2. Briefly stating, respondent No.1-landlord claiming himself to be owner of shop bearing No. NK.142 Mohalla Charanjit Pura, Jalandhar having purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 29.08.2001, filed eviction petition against the petitioner as well as proforma respondents-tenants. In eviction petition, rate of rent pleaded was of Rs.1500/- per month and the eviction was sought on the grounds of arrears of rent, personal necessity of respondent No.1-landlord besides the tenants having impaired the value and utility of demised premises. It was also pleaded that the factum of respondent No.1/landlord having purchased the demised premises was brought to the notice of petitioner-tenant and he was asked to pay rent @ Rs.1500/- per month whereas in response, the tenants paid rent for some time but thereafter, stopped the same. Despite repeated requests tenants did not pay the rent resultantly legal notices dated 30.10.2007 and 19.11.2007 were served upon them but to no avail thus by compelling the filing of eviction petition.

3. Upon notice, the tenants appeared and filed written statement by opposing the claim made in the eviction petition while stating that the rate of rent was Rs.30/- per month. The relationship of landlord and tenant was denied while submitting that no notice about the property having been purchased by respondent No.1-landlord was ever served upon them. It was also stated that the shop being run by the father of respondent No.1-landlord was huge enough to accommodate him in the business and thus no case for bonafide necessity was made out.

4. The Rent Controller vide judgment dated 24.04.2014 passed eviction order against the tenants on the ground of arrears of rent as well as personal necessity of respondent No.1. Aggrieved thereof, an appeal was filed, however, the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 13.11.2015, thereby upholding the eviction order.

5. Impugning the aforementioned judgments passed by the Authorities below, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after having adjudicated upon the rate of rent, the authorities below did not provide any opportunity to the petitioner-tenant for deposit of arrears of rent especially in view of the fact that respondent No.1-landlord failed to prove the communication about his ownership to the tenants by virtue of legal notices dated 30.10.2007 and 19.11.2007. It has also been submitted that the sale deed dated 29.08.2001 vide which respondent No.1-landlord allegedly purchased the demised premises was nev