A landlord's bona fide necessity for eviction must be established, and a prior dismissal does not preclude a new application if circumstances change.

JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

CM-26062-CII-2015

Application is allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Exemption from filing the certified copy of judgment dated 06.08.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Gurdaspur and true typed copy of judgment and 20.07.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, is granted.

MAIN CASE

1. The petitioner-landowner, by way of present revision petition under Section 15 (5) of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, seeks setting aside of an order dated 20.07.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as “Appellate Authority”), whereby an appeal preferred by the respondents- tenants against the order dated 06.08.2009 passed by learned Rent Controller, Gurdaspur, allowing the eviction petition preferred at the instance of petitioner-landlord, was accepted, thereby setting aside the eviction order of learned Rent Controller.

2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner-landlord is the co-owner of rented land measuring 10’ x 6’ x 25’ as detailed in the headnote of the eviction petition instituted by him and respondents were in occupation of the rented land being tenants. The petitioner-landlord filed an eviction petition on 09.02.2004 on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide necessity so as to open an office of his own business about sale and purchase of properties.

3. In response, eviction petition was opposed on the point of res judicata while stating that an earlier eviction petition by the petitioner and his brother filed in 1989 through their father on account of bona fide need was dismissed upto this Court vide decision dated 01.04.2003 besides, the other co-sharer of the petitioner who happened to be the brother did not support the eviction. It was also pleaded that the bona fide need of the petitioner was not made out qua the shop in question, as his father owned number of other properties in the same urban area.

4. Learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 06.08.2009 allowed the eviction petition preferred at the instance of petitioner-landlord on the ground of bona fide need of the petitioner qua the rented land.

5. Aggrieved thereof, respondent Nos. 1 to 8 preferred first appeal, which was allowed vide decision dated 20.07.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the present revision petition.

6. Impugning the aforementioned decision dated 20.07.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner- landlord submits that the Appellate Authority went wrong while reversing the well reasoned decision rendered by the learned Rent Controller, whereby the respondents-tenants were ordered to be evicted from the rented land. He further submits that the factum of petitioner being involved in the business of sale and purchase of property was admitted by Lakhwinder Pal / RW-1 (respondent No. 2 herein) as well as Naresh Mehta / RW-2. He also points out that mere fact that the petitioner was residing in the house owned by his sister-in-law, namely, Shivani, could not have been taken against him for the purpose of non-suiting him on account of other commercial properties being owned and possessed by his father in the same urban area. He further submits that once his brother-Jogesh Kumar, who happened to be co-owner in the demised property and was impleaded as respondent No. 9 in the property in question, did not oppose the eviction petition preferred at the instance of petitioner, his absence could not have been taken adverse against the petitioner and as such, judgment passed by the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside, while restoring the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller.

7. On the other hand, learned Sen