Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1048 (PNJ)

Kishan Dass v. Ujagar Singh

2002-10-09

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR

body2002
Judgment J.S.Khehar, J. 1. The petitioner-landlord sought eviction of the respondent-tenant from-the land leased out to him by filing an application before the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur oh the ground of bona fide personal necessity. The claim for eviction of the respondent-tenant was not accepted by the Rent Controller, who dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-landlord on 25.4.1981. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Rent Controller, the petitioner-landlord preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur. The Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur concurred with the opinion expressed by the Rent Controller in its order dated 26.7.1983. 2. The petitioner-landlord has preferred the instant petition impugning the order of Rent Controller dated 25.4.1981 and that of the Appellate Authority dated 26.7.1983. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord is that the land in question is required by the petitioner to set-up an office. In this behalf, it is pointed out that the petitioner is running a flourishing business of flour and oil crusher and that he needs an office to deal with the administrative matters pertaining to his business and it is for that purpose that the petitioner-landlord is seeking the eviction of the respondent-tenant so that he can construct an office block on the land in question to satisfy his own personal need. 3. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority declined the claim of the petitioner-landlord on account of the fact that the landlord has already an office on the same road on which he has his business premises. It is also stated by one of the witnesses, Charan-jit Singh RW2 that the pethioner-landlord is maintaining an office, which is one of the best in the locality. Since the petitioner-landlord has not controverted the fact that he is already running an office in the locality, which is one of the best in the locality, it is not possible for me to accept that the claim of the petitioner-landlord to the effect that he needs the land in question for construction of an office complex for his bona fide personal necessity. No evidence has been brought to my notice on the basis of which the statement of Charanjit Singh, who had appeared as RW2 before the Rent Controller, can be controverted. No evidence has been brought to my notice on the basis of which the statement of Charanjit Singh, who had appeared as RW2 before the Rent Controller, can be controverted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the statement of the petitioner-landlord himself, who appeared as AW2 before the Rent Controller, I have perused the aforesaid statement, even the statement of Kishan Dass (as AW2) is not sufficient to controvert the factual position noticed in the statement of Charanjit Singh RW2. 4. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this petition. The same is, ac cordingly, dismissed.