The court ruled that a landlord's claim for personal use must consider the broader interpretation of 'own use,' allowing for business operations by a son, and established that the eviction petition was valid despite claims of property concealment.

Judgment

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.

The petitioner-landlord (Sahil Gupta), by instituting the present revision petition, seeks setting aside the order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority, Sangrur (for short “Appellate Authority”), whereby an eviction order dated 17.08.2013 passed by learned Rent Controller, Sangrur (for short “Rent Controller”) was set aside, resulting into dismissal of his (petitioner) eviction petition.

FACTS:-

2. Briefly stating, the petitioner-landlord, who claims himself to be the owner of demised shop situated at Nabha Gate, Sangrur, after having purchased it vide sale deed dated 16.05.2003, filed an eviction petition against the respondent-tenant on the ground of arrears of rent as well as for his own personal bona fide necessity, while claiming himself to be neither owner nor occupier of any other vacant shop / premises situated within the urban area of Sangrur and also having not got vacated any other shop in the said area.

3. Upon notice, the respondent-tenant appeared and filed detailed written statement, contesting the claim made by the petitioner-landlord, while submitting that the petitioner-landlord owned and occupied other properties belonging to Joint Hindu Family being the member, which were not disclosed in the eviction petition and thus, he was liable to be non-suited on account of concealment of material facts. In response, replication was filed on behalf of the petitioner-landlord. Relevant para-3 thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

“3. That para no. 3 of the reply as allege is wrong, hence denied. Petitioner owns no other shop except the shop mentioned in rent petitioner (sic – petition). It is wrong that petitioner owns shop no.8 situated at Kaula Park, Sangrur. The respondent cannot dictate the terms to the landlord. The mother of the purchased shop no. 8 with her own funds. It is wrong that said shop is lying vacant. Rather franchise of M/s Videocon Company has been opened.

The petitioner is not owner of adjoining shop rather mother of petitioner is owner of adjoining shop and his father is carrying the business in the said shop. The petitioner also assists him as petitioner is idle. It is wrong that Joint Hindu Family also own property behind the shop. Rather petitioner is owner of that shop which is on rent with silver printers. It is wrong that petitioner or Joint Hindu Family is owner of residential plot measuring 320 Sq. Yards. Rather parents of the petitioner are owners of the residential plot. The respondent wants to make matter complicated by using Hindu Family although petitioner is not owner of any other property except mentioned in the rent petition. The shop in question is more suitable for the petitioner. It is also not usual to always depend upon the properties of parents. The petitioner worked at the shop of his father in the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 only and used to get salary during that period. “

4. The Rent Controller, vide judgment dated 17.08.2013, allowed the eviction petition filed at the instance of petitioner-landlord, while recording findings in his favour as regards his bona fide necessity qua the demised premises/shop. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent-tenant approached the Appellate Authority and the said appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 18.05.2016, resulting into setting aside of the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller.

CONTENTIONS:

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER-LANDLORD

5. Impugning the aforesaid order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord submits that there is nothing on record to establish that any other property besides the