1. ' The respondent filed an application for ejectment of the appellant in respect of a shop occupied by him as a tenant. There are five shops in a row which are part of a residential building. The residential portion is occupied by the respondent and he claims ejectment on the ground that this shop is required for his bona fide personal need and residence of his family members which consists of his wife and grown-up children. It was also stated that by removing the wall between the residential premises and the shop occupied by the appellant, it can be converted into one compact house for the residence of the family membeRs, The learned Controller granted ejectment application.
2. Mr. Rana the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that one shop as mentioned in the report of the Commissioner was vacated in the year 1984 during the pendency of the case, but it was not occupied by the respondent. The learned counsel also states that another Shop No,5 was also vacated and rented out to other tenant. However, from the record, it is clear that no question was asked by the appellant in cross-examination that these shops could be converted into residential premises in the same manner as claimed by the respondent in respect of the shop in dispute. Therefore, in the absence of any such evidence, even if those shops were rented out, it is difficult to believe that the claim of the respondent lacks bona fides. So far the respondent's bona fide requirement is concerned, it has been fully established on record. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. The appellant should vacate the premises within I six months.