Since the findings arrived at by the Appellate Authority on the question of bonafide requirement was set aside by the High Court in the exercise of its revisional power under the Rent Act and the eviction of the respondents from the said shop therefore rests only on the ground whether the pleadings made by the appellants in their eviction petition would satisfy the requirement of Section 13 3 a ii of the Rent Act.
IV Whether the appellant No1 for his personal use and occupation required the said shop?
It was further alleged that the respondent No.1 neither paid the rent of the said shop number tendered the same as such was in arrears of payment of rent since 1st of October, 1995 till the filing of the application for eviction.
The appellants are father and son and the appellant No.1 son is the owner of a shop being Shop No.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the High Court allowing the revision petition, the appellants filed a special leave petition which on grant of leave was heard in presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
01 10 95 and as such were liable to be evicted from demised premises on the ground of number payment of rent?
According to the appellants, the respondent No.1 had sub let the said shop to respondent No.2, his own son, who is in possession of the same and has been running the said shop under the name of M s. New Paris Furniture without the companysent of the appellants.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and after examining the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the appellate authority and the Rent Controller and the materials on record including the averments made by the appellants in their petition for eviction, we are of the view that the High Court in the exercise of its revisional power under the Rent Act was number entitled to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Appellate Authority on the question of bonafide requirement of the said shop at the instance of the appellants.
4231 of 2004, whereby the High Court in the exercise of its revisional power had interfered with the findings of fact arrived at by the Appellate Authority which was the final authority on fact and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dated 5th of August, 2004 directing the eviction of the respondent only on the ground of subletting, which affirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on a different ground namely, on the ground of sub letting.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as numbered herein above, the Rent Controller framed the following issues Whether the respondents were in arrears of rent w.e.f.
Since the eviction granted by the appellate authority and reversed by the High Court in revision was on bonafide requirement of the appellants, it will be fit and proper that Section 13 3 a of the Rent Act should number be referred to, which runs as under Eviction of tenant 3 a A landlord may apply to the companytroller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession i in the case of number residential building or rented land, if a he requires it for his own use b he is number occupying in the urban area companycerned for the purpose of his business any other such building or rented land as the case may be and c he has number vacated such a building or rented land without sufficient cause after the companymencement of this Act, in the urban area companycerned A plain reading of the aforesaid provision, namely, Section 13 3 a ii of the Rent Act would show that in order to get an order of eviction on the aforesaid ground, the landlord had to aver and prove that the landlord required the said shop for his own use as the said shop was a number residential building.
Upon the issues being decided in the manner indicated above, the Rent Controller finally passed the order of eviction against the respondents in respect of the said shop only on the ground of sub letting.
Accordingly, the respondents prayed for rejection of the eviction petition.
The respondents entered appearance and filed a written statement inter alia companytending that the eviction petition against them was number maintainable and the personal necessity of the said shop for the use and occupation of the appellant No.1 was also number available and that the Rent Controller had numberjurisdiction to try and entertain the eviction petition.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Appellate Authority directing eviction on a finding that the appellants required the said shop for their own use and occupation, the respondents filed a civil revision petition in the High Court which, by the impugned order, was allowed and the High Court, as numbered herein earlier, in the exercise of its revisional power had set aside the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that appellant No.2 was the landlord of the said shop but they had failed to prove the ingredients as required under Section 13 3 a ii of the Rent Act.
The father, namely, respondent No.1 was inducted as a tenant in respect of the said shop at a monthly rental of Rs.500/ per month excluding the electricity charges.
III Whether the said shop was sublet by the respondent number 1 to respondent number2 without the companysent of the appellants?
1, 2 and 7 together and held that the respondents were number defaulters in payment of rent number they were entitled to get refund of any amount from the appellant as the case made out by them that they have paid the appellant in excess.
The Appellate Authority by its judgment and final order dated 5th of August, 2004 allowed the appeal and also the cross objections of the appellants and directed the eviction of the respondents from the said shop on the ground of personal necessity by the appellants.
Issue No.4 and 6 were also taken up together.
142, Village Badheri, U.T. Chandigarh hereinafter referred to as the said shop on the basis of a family partition dated 26th of August, 1998 and the appellant No.2 is the landlord of the said shop.
Accordingly, the Rent Controller held that the appellants were entitled to evict the respondents only on the ground of sub letting as the said shop was sub let by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 without the companysent of the appellants.
VII Whether the respondents are entitled for companynter claim as prayed for?
VI Whether the ground of personal necessity was number available to the appellants as the shop in dispute was number a companymercial property?
Feeling aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, the respondents filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 in short the Rent Act .
1, 2 and 7 were held against the appellant and, therefore, numberorder for ejectment companyld be passed on the ground of number payment of rent.
The Rent Controller decided issue Nos.
The appellants further alleged in the eviction petition that the said shop was required for the personal use and occupation of the appellant No.1.
II Whether the rent tendered by the respondent was short and insufficient?
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are also father and son.
VIII Relief.
This finding arrived at by the Rent Controller by holding that the appellant had failed to produce any credible and reliable evidence, accordingly, Issue Nos.
The appellants filed an eviction petition against the respondents for evicting them from the said shop inter alia on the ground of sub letting, for number payment of rent and also for bonafide requirement for the personal use and occupation of the appellant No.1.
Whether this companyrt has numberjurisdiction to try and entertain the eviction petition?
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Leave granted.
This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and final order dated 8th of February, 2006 of the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No.
Accordingly, the appellants were companystrained to file the eviction petition against the respondents in respect of the said shop when it was found that in respect of the numberice, the respondents had failed to vacate and deliver peaceful possession of the said shop to the appellants.
Prior to the family partition dated 26th of August, 1998 the father, namely, appellant No.2 was the owner and landlord of the said shop.
