Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.@mdashThree sons and three daughters of Om Parkash preferred eviction petition u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban
Rent Restriction Act for eviction of M/s.Agar Chand Ram Phal Jain which has been contested by its partners Agar Chand and Ramphal Jain.
2. The case set out in the eviction petition is that shop portion measuring 10'' x 36'' on the ground floor bearing Shop.No.1722, Main Bazar,
Manimajra was rented out to the tenant at the rate of Rs.300/- P.M. It was further stated that original landlord Om Parkash had expired on
15.09.1990 and his sons and daughters became co-owners of the property. It was further stated that late Om Parkash had filed an eviction
petition in 1984 which was not accepted. The grounds for eviction taken were that the shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as it
is in a dilapidated condition. Further it was stated that tenant is in arrears of rent. Along with these grounds, ground of personal necessity was also
pleaded that Rakesh Kumar is engaged in the business of preparing, selling and stitching of air bags and school bags from one small room which is
on rent with him and landlord qua that room is pressing hard to vacate the premises. It was also stated that accommodation with Rakesh Kumar
was insufficient and unsuitable. It was further stated that Udesh Kumar petitioner No.3 has grown up and is unemployed. He has studied upto 10th
class and is interested to run the business of general merchant. The eviction petition was filed on 09.09.1997.
3. Notice of the eviction petition was issued. A written statement was filed in which it was stated that there was no ground available for eviction of
commercial property. No notice has been served. The tenant has paid the rent on 15.01.1995 along with interest. It was also stated that petition is
bad for non-joinder of parties as Chand Bai mother of the landlords had died on 10.03.1998 and her name had not been struck off. On merits,
ground of personal necessity and building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation were also denied.
4. The Rent Controller had formulated the issues. Landlord Rakesh Kumar himself appeared as PW1 and examined Udesh Kumar another co-
owner PW2 and Gurmukh Singh PW3 and Bharat Bhushan PW4. Bharat Bhushan is landlord qua Rakesh Kumar where he is carrying on
business of preparation of air bags and school bags.
5. The ground of non payment of rent was not accepted as rent had been tendered. The Rent Controller held that Rakesh Kumar PW1 and Udesh
Kumar PW3 who is co-owner have proved the ground of bona fide requirement and personal use. However, ground of eviction that building has
become unsafe and unfit for human habitation was not accepted. Aggrieved against the same, an appeal was filed. The Appellate Authority held
that ground of personal necessity is made out and had dismissed the appeal filed by the tenants. Aggrieved against the same, present revision
petition has been filed.
6. Mr. Arun Jain, senior counsel ably assisted by Mr.Amit Jain has vehemently stated that Bharat Bhushan appearing as PW4 has not proved his
ownership regarding the premises where Rakesh Kumar is a tenant. He has also not proved any rent note/rent deed. Therefore, plea of the
landlord that he is a tenant under Bharat Bhushan PW4 ought not be accepted.
7. In the present case, not only Rakesh Kumar but Udesh Kumar require the premises for their personal use. Admittedly, Udesh Kumar had
grown up and is unemployed. Shri Jain has stated that Udesh Kumar was carrying on business in a shop where the incident of fire had taken place.
Mr.Jain has stated that since both Rakesh Kumar and Udesh Kumar were in occupation of other properties, their need for personal necessity is
not made out. He state that whether they were occupying the premises as a tenant or in any other capacity is immaterial. Statement of Mr.Bharat
Bhushan that he was requesting them for vacation of premises should not be accepted. Admittedly, Rakesh Kumar is carrying on business of
stitching of school bags and air bags. He has also made a statement that premises with him are not suitable and are insufficient. Udesh Kumar has
also stated that because of fire, he cannot carry on business, therefore, shop is required by them. The need of the landlord is to be seen from his
perspective. The Courts has also to examine the need of the landlord only on the touchstone whether the same is required for bona fide personal
necessity or greed. In the present case, the tenant who is in occupation of the premises since 30 years at the rate of Rs.300/- P.M. cannot dictate
his terms to the landlord to carry on the business from other premises. It cannot be said that since the landlord of Rakesh Kumar has not produced
any document regarding his ownership, therefore, no heed should be paid to his oral request.
8. Mr.Pipat, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.Ramanjit Singh has stated that in the present case out of the profits generated by the tenant
from the demised premises, he has purchased two adjoining shops in the same locality. This Court need not dwell on this part of the argument.
9. In view of the above observations, no ground is made out to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two Courts below while
exercising revisional jurisdiction and the revision petition is dismissed.
10. At this stage, Mr.Jain state that since the petitioners are running the shop, reasonable time be granted to them to deliver peaceful and vacant
possession of the demised premises to the landlord. The tenants are granted two months time to vacate the premises.
