Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 908 (PNJ)

Jagdish Lal Sehgal v. R. K. Jain

2005-08-29

S.S.SARON

body2005
Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 4316 and 4317 of 2005 as they relate to the same demised premises and are between the same parties. Besides they were consolidated by the Rent Controller vide order dated 24.2/2001, Even otherwise common questions of law and facts arise in these revision petitions. 2. The landlord-respondents filed two ejectment petitions under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (Act for short) for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from House No. 1373 as detailed in the head note of the ejectment petition. The landlord sought the eviction on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent. Besides, he required the premises for his personal bona fide necessity. It was also pleaded that no fair rent had been fixed under the Act. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not denied. The tenant-petitioner asserted that he had been regularly making payment of rent to the petitioner for which the landlord and/or his representatives had been accepting the rent but they did not give any receipt. The ground of bona fide necessity of the landlord was denied by taking the stand that the landlord had been working as a Superintending Engineer with the Haryana Vidyut Parsar Nigam Limited (HVPN) at Panchkula and he has a residential house No. 792, Sector 4 at Panchkula. Besides the children the landlord were also studying there. The rate of rent was stated to be Rs. 900/- per month and not Rs. 2,500/- per month as had been claimed by the landlord. The learned Rent Controller held the rate of rent between the parties to be Rs. 1100/- per month and not Rs. 2,500/- per month. It was also held that the tenant had not paid rent for the period from 1.7.1994 to 31.12.1996 which comes to Rs. 33,000/- and with interest and costs amounted to Rs. 47,090/- which the tenant petitioner was directed to pay within two weeks from the passing of the order in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 370. The case of bona fide requirement was also held to be made out in favour of the landlord. Accordingly, ejectment of the tenant-petitioner was ordered. 3. The case of bona fide requirement was also held to be made out in favour of the landlord. Accordingly, ejectment of the tenant-petitioner was ordered. 3. The tenant-petitioner assailed the judgment and order of the Rent Controller before the Appellate Authority under the Act. The Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller with regard to arrears of rent and it was held that the tenant-petitioner was in arrears of rent in respect of the demised premises @ Rs. 2,500/- per month w.e.f, 1.7.1994. It was also observed that the tenant-petitioner had deposited Rs. 47,090/- pursuant to the orders of the Rent Controller. The need of the landlord-respondent for the demised premises for personal necessity was upheld. Consequently, the appeal of the tenant-petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 10.8.2005 which is assailed by way of the present petition under Section 15(6) of the Act. 4. Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, learned Counsel appearing for the tenant-petitioner has vehemently contended that the orders passed by the authorities under the Act are perverse and the same are unsustainable in law inasmuch as there has been misreading of evidence and the authorities under the Act have completely brushed aside the evidence on record. It is contended that the rate of rent in respect of the demised premises was Rs. 900/- per month. However, the Rent Controller wrongly assessed the same to be Rs. UOOA per month whereas the Appellate Authority further erred in holding that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,500/- per month. It is submitted that the documents Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4 have been misread by the Appellate Authority. Ex.A-3, it is submitted, was executed between the petitioner and one Mrs. Veeran Wali, who claimed herself to be the owner of the house. The landlord-respondent while appearing in the case admitted that he had not given any authority to said Mrs. Veeran Wali to execute such a document. Therefore, the landlord-respondent, it is contended, could not derive any benefit from the same and the same did not inter se determine the rights of the parties. Even the document Ex.A-4 has been wrongly relied upon to hold that the rate of rent was increased from Rs. 900/- to Rs. 1100/-, then to Rs. 1,800/- and lastly to Rs. 2,500/-. In fact there was no reference in the said document to the gradual increase of rent. Even the document Ex.A-4 has been wrongly relied upon to hold that the rate of rent was increased from Rs. 900/- to Rs. 1100/-, then to Rs. 1,800/- and lastly to Rs. 2,500/-. In fact there was no reference in the said document to the gradual increase of rent. The respondent, it is contended, even though he is an income-tax assessee, failed to show that the rent as claimed was shown in the income tax returns. The findings with respect to bona fide necessity recorded by both the authorities under the Act are also assailed and it is contended that evidence beyond the pleadings has been taken into consideration inasmuch as there is no reference to the retirement of the landlord-respondent from the Electricity Board. Besides the respondent has his own house at Panchkula and his children are also studying there. Therefore, the need of the landlord is only a ruse to seek eviction of the petitioner-tenant. In support of his the learned Counsel has relied upon Shakuntla Bai v. Narain Dass (2004-2)137 P.L.R. 845 (S.C.).5.1 have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Both the authorities under the Act have reached concurrent findings of fact as regards the petitioner being in arrears of rent and also the bonafide requirement of the landlord. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a pointed reference to Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4 which he has placed on record as Annexures P-l and P-3 (Annexure P-l) would show that the same is an agreement between Jagdish Lal Sehgal (petitioner-tenant) taking the house on rent from Mrs. Veeran Wali for a period of 2-1/2 years from 5.5.1989 to 1.1.1992 at a "monthly rent of Rs. 1100/-. The said agreement has been signed by the petitioner-tenant and Smt. Veeran .Wali. Ex.A-4 (Annexure P-2) is a letter written by the petitioner to the respondent in which it is stated that the previous agreement was made with so-called aunt of Rohtak which was valid up to May, 1994. Besides, the respondent would get reasonable increase in rent and that this was a gentlemans promise. The learned Appellate Authority observed that the rate of initial rent of Rs. 900/- per month. It was observed that the writing of letter Ex.A-4 by the tenant-petitioner has not been disputed. Besides, the respondent would get reasonable increase in rent and that this was a gentlemans promise. The learned Appellate Authority observed that the rate of initial rent of Rs. 900/- per month. It was observed that the writing of letter Ex.A-4 by the tenant-petitioner has not been disputed. It was observed that if rate of rent of the demised premises was not to be increased there was no necessity to such a letter and as to why and under what circumstances it had been written has not been explained. The fact of non-production of income-tax returns was also found to be inconsequential. In any case, it was observed that the need of the landlord was bonafide. 5. The position on record is that the landlord has retired on attaining the age of superannuation in 2002 and thereafter he got extension which ended in February, 2005. On the strength of the judgment in Shakuntla Bais core (supra), it is contended that the landlords need is to be seen on the date of filing the suit. It is well known that the bona fide need in respect of the landlord is to be seen from the stand point of his requirement. It has been held that to establish the case of bonafide, there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction between the desire and need are to be kept in view. In case the landlord wants to settle at Panipat, the tenant cannot say that since he has a house at Panchkula why is he shitting to Panipat. In the case of Shakuntla Bai (supra) referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the need of the landlord was seen on the date of filing of the suit from the point that the landlord had instituted a petition for eviction of his tenants in March 1962 on the ground of bona fide need for carrying on business by him. During the pendency of the appeal filed by the tenant, the landlord died leaving behind a widow and minor sons. This was taken by the High Court as an advantage to the tenant rendering the suit liable for dismissal little realizing that they i.e. the LRs of the landlord also needed some place to carry on business for survival. During the pendency of the appeal filed by the tenant, the landlord died leaving behind a widow and minor sons. This was taken by the High Court as an advantage to the tenant rendering the suit liable for dismissal little realizing that they i.e. the LRs of the landlord also needed some place to carry on business for survival. It was in the said context that it was observed that the need of the landlord is to be seen on the date of filing the suit. 6. In the case in hand, the petitioner has been wanting to reside at Panipat in his house and now he has retired may be after getting extension. Therefore, the subsequent events are not to run to the disadvantage of the landlord by pinning him down to his need as it existed only on the date of the institution of the petition. Rather his need has increased with his retirement. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh (2003-1)133 P.L.R. 542 (S.C.), considered the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act which is para material to Section 15(6) of the Act. It was held that the object of conferring revisional jurisdiction on the High Court is to enable it to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of an order made by the Controller or the proceedings before him. It was also observed that simply because a different judge of Court of facts could have been persuaded to change opinion and draw a different inference from the same set of facts it not the jurisdiction of a revisional authority to upset pure finding of fact. The High Court, it was observed, need not be solicitous and venture in suggesting what would be more appropriate to the landlord. What is, therefore, required to be seen is the genuine and bonafide need of the landlord. As such, when both the authorities have felt his need to be bona fide, it is reasonable to infer that the plea set up by the landlord was made in good faith and not as a mere ruse to seek .the eviction of the petitioner. Even as regards the arrears of rent the Appellate Authority after assessing the rate of rent to Rs. Even as regards the arrears of rent the Appellate Authority after assessing the rate of rent to Rs. 2,500/- per month, granted the tenant-petitioner two weeks time to tender the arrears along with interests and costs. Therefore, time was granted to the petitioner to make up for the short tender of rent and save himself from ejectment oh this ground. As such no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner on this account. 7. For the foregoing, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. However, on the request of the petitioner-tenant, he is granted four months time from today to vacate the demised premises provided he files an undertaking in this regard within 15 days of the receipt of a copy of this order.