A tenant filed a revision against an ejectment order. The bench affirmed the lower courts finding of bona fides by the landlady needing premises for her son's business and dismissed the petitioner's appeal against eviction.
Petition dismissed; eviction order upheld with stay allowing six months to vacate upon filing of undertaking.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CR No. 114 of 2013 Date of decision January 10, 2013
Karnail Singh
....... Petitioner
Versus
Hind Rani and others
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:Mr. Raman Mohinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
K. Kannan, J (oral).
action for ejectment of the non-residential premises. The landlady sought for eviction on the ground that property is necessary for setting up a business for her son. The petitioner admittedly has no building except the flour Mill premises and it was sought to be contended by the tenant that the flour Mill itself contained several rooms with shutters opening on the road which could be used by the tenant. It was also in defence that the son for whose behalf the eviction was sought has been actively associated in the flour Mill business itself and there was no need for the landlady to set up a separate business at the demised premises. The contention is that the tenant has been in possession ever since the year 1989 and the
eviction is sought for no justificable ground.
admitted property for business was flour Mill, the fact that the flour Mill comprises of three floors and contains rooms cannot admit to a plea that business that the landlady wants to set up for his son must be accommodated in the flour Mill itself. If the contention was that the flour Mill's business was hers and the son associated himself in such a business it cannot amount to forsaking his right to set up separate business to augment his own income. The Two Courts below have found the bona fide of the requirement of the landlady as having been established. I find no justification for interference with the order.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
January 10, 2013 archana
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the tenant can resist eviction when the landlord proves bona fide need for business premises.
Whether the landlord's rights to set up separate business for her son are barred by the tenant's existing association with a flour mill.
Karnail Singh
Hind Rani and others
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
