Judgment:
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 102 Civil Revision No.1415 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.1.2014 Harish Kumar and others ......petitioners Versus Rambhaj and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Suryakant Gautam, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Ms.Monika Thakur, Advocate, for Mr.Raghuvinder Singh, Advocate, for the respondents.
**** SABINA, J.
Respondents had filed the ejectment petition against the petitioners on the ground of arrears of rent, personal necessity and that the building in question was not fit for human habitation.
The said petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 6.9.2010, whereas, in appeal, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.3.2011 ordered the ejectment of the petitioners on the ground of personal necessity.
During the couRs.of arguments, it has transpired that in execution proceedings, possession of the premises in question has already been handed over to the landlord.
Moreover, Appellate Authority had rightly ordered the ejectment of the petitioners on the ground of personal necessity.
Case of the landlord was that the demised premises was required by their sons to carry on business under the name and style of M/s Vogue Fabrics.
Sunil Dutt, son of Rambhaj and Chander Devi Anita 2014.01.27 15:34 I am approving this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1415 of 2012 (O&M) -2- Kanta (landlords had appeared in the witness box and deposed that he was running the business of 'Vogue fabrics' at Panipat and Delhi.
He wanted to start the business in the demised premises by running office-cum-showroom.
Thus, the person, who had to run the business in the demised premises, had been examined and it was not necessary for the parents of Sunil Dutt to have themselves stepped in the witness box.
It had transpired that father of Sunil Dutt had retired from the service in the year 1986 and was 84 years old, whereas, his mother was 75 years old.
In these circumstances, the Appellate Authority rightly held that the landlord had been successful in establishing the fact that the demised premises was required by them to enable them to allow their son to run the business in the premises in question.
No ground for interference is made out.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(SABINA) JUDGE January 22, 2014 anita Devi Anita 2014.01.27 15:34 I am approving this document Chandigarh