Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 331 (PNJ)

Bhushan Lal Bardwaj v. Gullan Devi

2003-02-21

M.M.KUMAR

body2003
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, challenges judgment dated 7.12.2002 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Panchkula, dismissing the appeal of the tenant-petitioner upholding the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the bona fide personal necessity of the family of the landlord-respondent has been fully established on record in respect of the non-residential building. It has further been held by both the Courts below that the death of landlord- respondent during the pendency of the litigation would not put an end to the ground of personal necessity raised by him because the demised premises situated at Kalka is required for running a clinic by his son and for the residential need of his grand children. The findings recorded by the Rent Controller, which have been affirmed by the Appellate Authority on the question of personal necessity, the sole ground which has survived for consideration, reads as under :- "1. The original petitioner Bala Ram had expired during the pendency of appeal and his heirs have been impleaded as respondents in the present appeal. In the present case, the requirement of the landlord would not cease to exist with his death. The ejectment of the tenant was being sought on the ground that the premises is required for running a clinic by the son of the landlord and for the residential need of the grand-children of Bala Ram. Now the said son and grand-son of Bala Ram have been impleaded as LRs of original landlord. So the present respondents are entitled to pursue with the same ground of personal necessity. 14. There is no dispute that Shri Urvi Dutt Sharma is running a clinic as a Medical Practitioner at Village Mallah for the last many years. The said village Mallah is situated at a distance of 13 Kms from Pinjore. The prospects of Medical Practitioner would be far better in a town such as Pinjore as compared to a far off village lying in the remote areas. So the said requirement is clearly bona fide requirement. 15. The submission of the appellant that Shri Urvi Dutt Sharma is not entitled to pracise in Haryana is meritless. Mr. The prospects of Medical Practitioner would be far better in a town such as Pinjore as compared to a far off village lying in the remote areas. So the said requirement is clearly bona fide requirement. 15. The submission of the appellant that Shri Urvi Dutt Sharma is not entitled to pracise in Haryana is meritless. Mr. Urvi Dutt Sharma has got himself registered with the Himachal Pradesh Authority as an Ayurvedic & Unani Medical Practitioner. Counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any rule or regulation which should bar Mr. Urvi Dutt Sharma for getting registered as a Medical Practitioner with Haryana authorities. Our Honble High Court in case of Phul Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1986(1) RCR 532 had also observed that by virtue of Schedule 1 to the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1963 everybody who is holding a degree of diploma of any Ayurvedic or Unani college recognised by the faculty within Punjab or outside would be eligible for being registered as a medical practitioner in the State of Punjab and Haryana. 16. The premises has also been sought for the residential needs of the grand-children of Bala Ram. It has been elaborated in the evidence that besides the disputed premises, the petitioner-landlord is also in possession of another adjoining room. Now the petitioner wants to raise construction on the first floor of both these rooms and the verandah for the residential requirements of the children of Shri Urvi Dutt Sharma. The family of Mr. Sharma wants to shift to Pinjore for providing better education to their children. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the bona fide personal needs of the family of the petitioner were fully established on the record and the Rent Controller had reached the right conclusion in this context and has rightly ordered the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity, hence finding no merits, the appeal is dismissed with costs." 2. I have heard Mr. Gurcharan Dass, learned counsel for the tenant- petitioner, who has argued that the grounds set-up by the landlord-respondent that his son Dr. I have heard Mr. Gurcharan Dass, learned counsel for the tenant- petitioner, who has argued that the grounds set-up by the landlord-respondent that his son Dr. Urvi Dutt Sharma need the demised premises for setting up his practice by shifting from Village Mallah in Himachal Pradesh to Kalka, which is one of the busy towns of Haryana is false because he is not entitled to establish his practice in Haryana being an Ayurvedic and Unani medical practitioner. However, he has failed to point out any rule/regulation or a statute imposing such a prohibition on the son of the landlord Bala Ram, Dr. Urvi Dutt Sharma to practice in Haryana. 3. After hearing the learned counsel, I do not find that there is any ground to set aside the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. The personal necessity of the grand-children of Bala Ram to reside in the demised premises has been established before both the Courts below. It has further been held that a compromise dated 6.1.1995 Ex. P-1 was executed between the parties recording an undertaking on the part of the tenant- petitioner to vacate the premises in question by 31.12.1995. The afore- mentioned agreement was recorded on 6.1.1995. The execution of the agreement has been proved, which was presented before the Court for compromising Civil Suit No. 487 of 1991 and the suit filed by Bala Ram was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 8.2.1995 Ex. P-3. On that account also, the tenant- petitioner was liable to be evicted. 4. The argument that Dr. Urvi Dutt Sharma, who is holding a degree in Ayurvedic and Unani medicines would not be entitled to practice in Haryana where the demised premises is situated is also liable to be rejected because in the Schedule I of the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1963, everyone who is holding a degree or diploma of Ayurvedic or Unani College recognised by the faulty (faculty ?) within Punjab or outside is entitled to be registered under Section 15 of the Act. It has further been provided that if anyone has acquired a degree in the Ayurvedic system or Unani system of medicine from any university established by law in India, such a person is entitled to be registered and practice in the State of Punjab and Haryana. It has further been provided that if anyone has acquired a degree in the Ayurvedic system or Unani system of medicine from any university established by law in India, such a person is entitled to be registered and practice in the State of Punjab and Haryana. The provisions of Section 15 along with the schedule are reproduced below for facility of reference :- "15. Registration - (1) Every person possessing any of the qualifications specified in Schedule I shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and on payment of such fees as may be prescribed in this behalf be entitled to have his name entered in part I of the Register subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. (2) Every person whose name is entered immediately before the commencement of this Act, in Part (i) or Part (ii) of the Register maintained under the East Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1949, or the Pepsu Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act 2008 B.K. shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to be registered in Part I of the Register. 3. Every person not in possession of the qualifications specified in Schedule I - a) whose name is entered immediately before the commencement of this Act in the list maintained under Section 34 of the East Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practioners Act, 1949 or under Section 33 of the Pepsu Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 2008 B.K.; or b) who proves to the satisfaction of the Registrar within a period of (eighteen months) from the commencement of this Act that he was in practice as a practitioner on the first day of August, 1963. 4. Every person entered in Part (iii) of the register maintained under the Acts referred to in sub-section (2) shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to be registered in part II of the Register. 5. No person shall be entitled under this section to have his name entered in the Register if he is a minor." Schedule I 1. 5. No person shall be entitled under this section to have his name entered in the Register if he is a minor." Schedule I 1. Degree or Diploma of any Ayurvedic or Unani College recognised by the Faculty (with at least four years course) within Punjab or outside it, or a degree in the Ayurvedic or Unani College recognised by the Faculty (with at least four years course) within Punjab or outside it, or a degree in the Ayurvedic System or Unani System of Medicine of any University established by law in India : Provided that persons who have already qualified from any Ayurvedic or Unani College or Institution prior to the commencement of this Act in a course of a duration of less than four years, will also be entitled for registration. 2. Final examinations held by the Faculty or by any college or institution affiliated to the Faculty. Final examination from any Ayurvedic or Unani Institution in Punjab or outside it, recognised by the Faculty or the Board for the purposes of registration." 5 A perusal of the provision produced in the paras above reveals that the petitioner cannot said to be disqualified to practice as a registered medical practitioner in the States of Punjab and Haryana. It is further pertinent to mention that before he started his practice at village Mallah in Himachal Pradesh, Dr. Sharma practised for some time at Pinjore, a town near Kalka, where the demised premises are situated. The learned counsel has not brought to my notice any other provision of a statute or rules incorporating prohibition against the registered medical practitioner to practice in Punjab or Haryana. Even otherwise, it has been proved on record that the premises are required for the residence of grand-children and doctor son of the landlord Bala Ram. Therefore, I have no hesitation in rejecting the argument raised by the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. No other argument has been raised. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Revision dismissed.