Sabina, J.@mdashRespondent had sought ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question by moving a petition u/s 13 of the East Punjab
Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (the Act for short) on the ground of change of user, personal necessity, arrears of rent and that the petitioner
had made material additions and alteration in the shop in question and had created nuisance. Case of the respondent, in brief, was that the premises
in question had been taken on rent by Jasbir Singh at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/- for repair of cycle/scooter. However, now the wife of the
tenant had started preparing tea for the customers w.e.f. June 2005. Tenant was in arrears of rent since June 2003. Premises in question was
required by the respondent for his own personal use and occupation. Tenant had made material alterations in the premises in question and was
creating nuisance.
2. Petitioner admitted the factum of tenancy between the parties. However, the other contentions in the ejectment petition were denied. The rate of
rent as mentioned in the petition i.e. Rs. 1,500/- per month was denied and it was averred that the shop in question had been taken on rent at a
monthly rent of Rs. 200/- per month.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:-
1. Whether the respondents have changed the user of the premises, if so, its effect? OPA
2. Whether the premises are required for the personal use and occupation of the petitioner? OPA
3. Whether the respondents have made addition and alteration, if so its effect? OPA
4. Whether the respondents are source of nuisance? OPA
5. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR
6. Relief.
4. Learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition on the ground of personal necessity and change of user.
5. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment passed by the Rent Controller was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated
14.12.2010. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-tenant.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the shop in question was on the boundary wall of the residential premises of the
respondent. The same could not be put to personal use by the respondent. The other two adjoining shops belonging to the respondent were lying
vacant.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the premises in question was required by the respondent for his own
personal use. Petitioner had changed the user of the shop in question as the same had been let out for repairs of cycles/scooters and now the wife
of the petitioner had started preparing tea for customers in the shop in question.
8. In the present case, relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not in dispute. The shop in question had been constructed on the
boundary wall of the residential premises of the respondent. Admittedly, three shops had been constructed by the respondent and two shops are
lying vacant.
9. Case of the respondent is that now he wanted to use the premises in question for his personal use as the tenanted premises was integral part of
the residential house. It is a settled proposition of law that the landlord is the best judge qua his needs. The landlord has averred that he wanted to
use the premises in question as a drawing room so that some formal guests could be attended by him in the said room. There is no occasion to
doubt the submission of the landlord in this regard.
10. Admittedly, the premises in question had been taken on rent by the petitioner for running a cycle repair shop. Petitioner had admitted that now
his wife had started preparing tea in the demised premises. Petitioner had failed to lead evidence that he had started the business of tea stall in the
premises in question with the consent of the landlord. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner
had changed the user of the shop. In these circumstances, the courts below had rightly ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of
personal necessity and change of user. No ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Dismissed.
