Civil Revision No. 1820 of 2014 (O&M). Case: Naveen Store and Ors. Vs Devender Kaur and Ors.. High Court of Punjab (India)

Case NumberCivil Revision No. 1820 of 2014 (O&M)
CounselFor Appellant: Mani Ram Verma, Advocate and For Respondents: A.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate
JudgesGurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.
IssueProperty Law
Judgement DateFebruary 02, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Punjab (India)


Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.

  1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-tenants against the concurrent findings of ejectment by the authorities below from the eviction which was found part of the building as described in the head-note of the ejectment application.

  2. The tenancy in question was created vide rent note dated 25.08.2005 and the shop was already on rent between the petitioner and the previous landlord who had sold the same in 1996. The claim petition was filed on 04.08.2009 on the ground of non-payment of rent from 08.06.2009 @ ` 325/- per month. Apart from that bonafide requirement of the landlord was pleaded for both his daughter and son-in-law for their personal use. The petitioner himself was stated to be doing a business under the ownership of one Davinder Kaur landlord @ ` 40/- per month and the shop was in a precarious condition. The requirement was for his daughter namely, Twinkle, who was residing in Green Avenue, Amritsar and she wanted to do business alongwith her father, as she had shifted from Bombay where their business had shut down and the shop being in commercial area, both daughter, son-in-law and petitioner could do the business.

  3. In the reply the rent note was admitted and the payment had been made upto June, 2009. It was denied that the shop in question was bonafide required by the landlord or for his daughter and son-in-law. It was alleged that the landlord owned another building situated at Swank Mandi, where there was another shop on the ground floor, he was owner thereto. The factum of the son-in-law doing business at Amritsar was not denied and rather the detail was given regarding various businesses, he was running and therefore the personal need was objected to. The following issues were framed by the Rent Controller.

    1. Whether the demised premises required by the petitioner for his bonafide personal necessity as claimed? OPP

    2. Whether only one rent note dated 25.08.2005 executed by respondent in favour of petitioner? OPP

    3. Relief.

  4. The respondent-landlord examined as many as four witnesses, whereas the tenant examined three witnesses. The Rent Controller took into account the fact that the landlord was doing business in a shop part of which had collapsed and noticed that his father was the owner of the property No. 1236, which was alleged to be the ownership of the landlord and therefore there was no concealment regarding the ownership of other...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT