Landlords possess the right to evict tenants based on bona fide personal necessity, which is not undermined by their ownership of other properties deemed unsuitable for their intended use.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J. (Oral)

This order will dispose of the present civil revision petition filed by the Petitioner-tenant seeking setting aside order of eviction dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Court of learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby the rent petition filed by the Respondent-landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, "the Act") was allowed and judgment dated 6.10.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the eviction order dated 12.10.2022, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent being landlord filed eviction petition against the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner took the shop in dispute on rent @ Rs. 18,000/- per annum besides house/property tax and electricity charges and it was settled between the parties that the rate of rent would be increased @ 25% after every 5 years. The Respondent sought eviction of the Petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f. September, 2015 along with house tax and the property in dispute was required by the Respondent for his personal use and occupation as the Respondent is already running his hosiery business under the name and style of M/s Shivam Hosiery and is having no sufficient space to set up his office for dealing and trading in hosiery business.

3. The rent petition was contested by the Petitioner, who filed written reply wherein relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was admitted but the other averments of the rent petition were denied.

4. Learned Rent Controller framed the following issues : -

1. Whether the landlord and tenant relationship exists between the parties ? OPP

2. Whether the Respondent is liable to pay arrears of rent as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the property in dispute is required by the Petitioner for his personal and family member use and occupation as explained in petition? OPP

4. Relief.

5. In order to prove his case, the Respondent-landlord-Mukesh Kumar himself appeared in the witness box as PW1 and tendered documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and also examined PW-2 Devinder Kumar. On the other hand, the counsel for the tenant examined RW-1 Harminder Singh, RW-2 Joginder Singh, RW-3 Tarun Kumar Gupta, RW-4 Ravi Kumar, Draftsman and RW-5 Ramesh Chander Gupta and also produced various documents Ex.RW4/1 to Ex.RW4/8, Ex.RW5/1 and Ex.RW5/2.

6. After hearing both the parties, learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition vide order dated 12.10.2022 while holding that the rented premises is required by the Respondent-landlord for his personal use. The appeal filed by the Petitioner against the said eviction order was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 6.10.2023. Both the Courts below held that the property in question is required by the Respondent to run his own business/office.

7. Counsel for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned judgments, inter alia contends that need of the Respondent is not bona fide and genuine as he is owner in possession of many other non-residential buildings, which are lying vacant. That actually, the Respondent is not running any hosiery business and is not in need of any space to run his office. It appears that the Respondent is running some joint business with his brothers. The counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner is running his business in the demised premises since long and the same is his sole source of income.

8. On the other hand, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent while supporting the impugned judgments inter alia contends that the premises in question is required