IMPORTANT POINT
Landlords have the right to seek eviction for bona fide personal use, and tenants cannot dictate property utilization.

JUDGMENT :

MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the order handed down by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana on 10.01.2019, whereby the Rent Petition, as filed by respondents No.1 to 3-landlords (here-in-after to be referred as ‘the landlords’) for seeking eviction of the petitioner and proforma-respondent No.4 from the demised premises, had been allowed on the ground that they (landlords) bona-fidely required these premises for their own use and the petitioner and proforma-respondent No.4 had been granted 02 (two) months’ time to hand over the physical possession of the above-mentioned premises to the landlords and also by the judgment as passed by learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana on 26.08.2019, qua dismissal of the Appeal moved by the petitioner against the afore-referred eviction order, he (petitioner) has preferred this revision-petition to lay challenge to the same.

2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts, as emerging from the perusal of the record and culminating in the filing of the present revision-petition, are that the landlords filed the above-said Rent Petition against proforma-respondent No.4 and the petitioner (arrayed as respondents No.1 and 2 respectively, therein) for seeking their eviction from the demised premises on the grounds that proforma-respondent No.4 was in arrears of rent for the period from 16.09.2004 to 15.01.2012 and had also not paid the house-tax w.e.f 01.06.2004 onwards and he had sub-let these premises to the petitioner without their consent and moreover, landlord Gorakh Nath and the sons of landlords Ajudhya Sagar and Ramesh Kumar required the said premises for starting/setting up their business in the same.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that proforma-respondent No.4 had chosen to be proceeded against ex-parte before the Rent Controller. However, the petitioner filed his written-statement, contesting the claim of the landlords therein, inter-alia, on the grounds that the demised premises were, initially, rented out to his father who expired in the year 2004 and thereafter, he had been carrying on the business in the afore-said premises and had, regularly, been paying the rent to landlord Gorakh Nath and thus, he was a tenant and the landlords did not require these premises for their own use and rather, in fact, they had filed the Rent Petition as they had been insisting/pressurizing him for increasing the rate of rent exorbitantly but due to the slump in his business, he was not in a position to enhance the same accordingly.

4. The parties were put to the trial by framing the issues on 14.01.2013. After appreciating and evaluating the evidence, as led by the landlords and the petitioner on the record and hearing their respective counsel, the Rent Controller allowed the Rent Petition and ordered for the eviction of proforma-respondent No.4 and the petitioner from the demised premises on the ground that the landlords required these premises for their bona-fide personal use but observed that the ground of non-payment of the arrears of rent had become redundant and also rejected the ground, as setforth by the landlords qua the sub-letting of the said premises. The petitioner moved an Appeal against the above-referred eviction order and the landlords also filed their Cross-Objections to assail the findings, returned by the Rent Controller qua the rejection of the pleas, as raised by them regarding the non-payment of arrears of rent and the sub-letting of the demised premises and vide the impugned judgment, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the afore-mentioned Appeal and the Cross-Objections.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner as well as learned Senior counsel for respondents No.1 to 3-landlords in the instant revision-petition and have also perused the record carefully.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioners Ajudhya Sagar and Gorakh Nath had been running the Ration- Depot and moreover, the landlords had let-out sev