Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 4266 (PNJ)

Sood Brothers v. Gurjit Singh

2006-11-03

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2006
Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner herein by way of present revision petition has challenged the order dated 1.5.2000 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, ordering eviction of the petitioner from SCF No. 27, Sector 26, Fruit and Vegetable Market, Chandigarh, on the ground of personal necessity. The order passed by the Rent Controller was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.11.2004. The owner landlord of the demised premises claimed eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground of arrears of rent with effect from 1.9.1993 as well as for his own use and occupation i.e. for his own use and his family members. It was claimed that his family consists of himself, wife, two sons and two daugheters-in-law and two small daughters. It was further claimed that both the sons of the respondent-landlord are graduates and daughters-in-law are Post Graduates. The respondent-landlord had retired from service on 31.5.1992 and thereafter shifted to village Mehmoodpur where he owns agricultural land. 2. The case set up by the respondent-landlord was that it was difficult for him to live in the village as there were no better medical facilities. It was claimed that the elder son of the landlord had taken first floor of House No. 2198, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh, on rent at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,100/- and got his minor daughter admitted in the School in Sector 18, Chandigarh. It was also claimed that the landlord along with his wife was residing in the same house where his younger son with his wife was staying in village Mehmoodpur because the accommodation in rented house in Sector 21 was not sufficient to cater to the need of the family. The landlord-respondent further claimed that entire SCF was required for his personal use and occupation because ground floor was to be used by the landlord and his sons to start business of sale of vegetable and fruit for which purpose this was meant, whereas first and second floors would be used for their residence. It was also claimed that the petitioner-tenant has changed the user of the demised premises as he was using the first and second floors for godown purposes without the consent of the landlord. It was also claimed that the petitioner-tenant has changed the user of the demised premises as he was using the first and second floors for godown purposes without the consent of the landlord. It was also the case of the respondent-landlord that earlier (the tenant) was staying on the first and second floor of the demised premises, but later on shifted to House No. 3229, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh. It was further claimed due to misuser, there is likelihood of resumption of the building by the Estate Officer. It was also claimed that the landlord did not own or occupy any residential or non-residential premises within the urban area of Chandigarh nor he vacated any such premises after the commencement of the Act. 3. The petition was contested by the petitioner-tenant on the plea that the eviction petition against the tenant which was a partnership concern, was not maintainable as the firm was not a juristic person. The petitioner-tenant claimed that the premises was rented out at a monthly rent of Rs. 280/- in the year 1970 excluding the electricity and water charges and thereafter the rent was enhanced from time to time and it was Rs. 1,500/- per month upto 31.3.1996 when the rent was enhanced to Rs. 3,000/-. It was further claimed that the rent was not enhanced to Rs. 3,500/-. The allegations of violation of the terms of the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulations) Act, or that of Rent Restriction Act, were denied. It was also claimed that premises in dispute was being used for which it was let out. It was further the case of the tenant-petitioner that the landlord had been getting the rent increased from time to time. He denied that he was in arrears of rent from 1st September, 1993 onwards and claimed that complete rent has been paid. It was also asserted that the demand drafts sent by the tenant-petitioner were returned undelivered. The ground of personal necessity was also denied. 4. It was also the case of the tenant-petitioner that after his retirement, the landlord had settled in his village and his younger son was also staying there. It was further claimed that they were managing their agricultural land. It was also claimed that the demised premises could not be got vacated on the ground of personal requirement. 4. It was also the case of the tenant-petitioner that after his retirement, the landlord had settled in his village and his younger son was also staying there. It was further claimed that they were managing their agricultural land. It was also claimed that the demised premises could not be got vacated on the ground of personal requirement. The petitioner-tenant also took a stand that the elder son of the landlord was residing at House No. 2198, Sector 28-C, Chandigarh and he was managing the transport business of his brother-in-law. It was also his case that the said house belongs to the brother-in-law of the son of the landlord. It was further claimed that the accommodation in possession of the son of the landlord was sufficient for the entire family. It was also claimed that the family of the respondent-landlord was engaged in transport business and, therefore, the sons of the landlord had no intention to start the business of vegetables and fruits. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller was pleased to frame the following issues :- "1. What is the rate of rent ? OPP 2. Whether the respondent is entitled to the counter claim ? OPR 3. Whether the petitioner requires the demised premises for his personal use and occupation ? OPP 4. Whether the respondent has changed the use of the demised premises without the written consent of the petitioner ? OPP 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPP 6. Relief." The learned Rent Controller held on issues No. 1 and 2 that the tender was short and therefore, issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the landlord and against the petitioner-tenant. The counter claim raised by the tenant- petitioner was rejected. On Issue No. 3 the learned Courts below came to the conclusion that even though the landlord had agricultural land in village Mahmoodpur, but his son was putting up at Chandigarh along with his wife and minor daughter. It was further held that the landlord along with his wife was also staying at Chandigarh. The learned Courts below further found as a matter of fact that both the sons of the landlord were unemployed and his younger son was looking after the agricultural land in village Mahmoodpur while the elder son of the landlord was looking after the business of his brother-in-law. The learned Courts below further found as a matter of fact that both the sons of the landlord were unemployed and his younger son was looking after the agricultural land in village Mahmoodpur while the elder son of the landlord was looking after the business of his brother-in-law. In view of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Courts below came to the conclusion that the demised premises was required bona fide by the respondent-landlord. However, the ground of change of user was rejected. Issue No. 5 was also decided against the petitioner-tenant. Mr. A.K. Chopra, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the tenant-petitioner vehemently argued that in the present case the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the `Act) have not been complied with as the landlord had merely stated that he or his son did not have any house owned by them in the urban area of Union Territory, Chandigarh and house No. 2198, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh, belongs to the daughter of the landlord and rent was being paid to her. However, this contention is totally misconceived and is being taken out of the context from the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority. As a matter of fact, the landlord had specifically pleaded and proved the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further contended that brother-in-law of the son of the landlord was declared a proclaimed offender as would be clear from the case titled as Harpal Singh v. Harjinder Kaur alias Rajinder Kaur, 1996(1) RCR (Criminal) 715 (P&H). The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was that the son of the landlord, therefore, was entitled to retain the house of his sister as he was looking after the business of his brother-in-law. This contention cannot be accepted as the son of the landlord could not claim to hold the premises in his own right as the said house belongs to his sister i.e. daughter of the landlord nor can it be said that the business of his brother-in-law would become his business. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner thereafter contended that as there was no material on record to show the bona fide requirement of the landlord, therefore, no ejectment of the petitioner-tenant could be ordered. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner thereafter contended that as there was no material on record to show the bona fide requirement of the landlord, therefore, no ejectment of the petitioner-tenant could be ordered. Learned Counsel in support of this contention placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi alias Bedo, 1980(1) RCR(Rent) 592 (DB) (P&H) : 1980 PLR 613. This contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is without any force. In the present case, the landlord had led evidence to prove the factum of his retirement and also that he along with his son wanted to start the business of sale of vegetables and fruit in the premises in dispute as well as to use the premises for residential purposes. 8. The next contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was that as the landlord was disbelieved on the question of rate of rent, therefore, he was not entitled to seek ejectment. 9. Mr. Rakesh Garg, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord, on the other hand, relied upon the judgments of this Court reported in Prithi Singh v. Shanti Sarup, 1996(1) RCR(Rent) 176 (P&H) : 1996(1) PLR 285 and Joginder Singh v. Virender Kumar, 2005(2) RCR(Rent) 672 (P&H) : 2005(3) PLR 495 to contend that if the landlord is disbelieved regarding the rate of rent, it is no ground to disbelieve him on the ground of bona fide requirement also. In view of the authoritative pronouncements referred to above, there is no merit in this contention. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord also placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in Vaneet Jain v. Jagjit Singh, 2000(1) RCR(Rent) 507 (SC) to contend that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Court below regarding bona fide need of the landlord cannot be reversed unless the said findings are totally unreasonable. The Honble Supreme Court in this judgment has been pleased to lay down that the High Court in revisional jurisdiction cannot reappreciate the evidence only because it is inclined to take a different view of the facts by treating itself to be a Court of fact. The Honble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down that the High Court is only to test whether the order of the Rent Controller is in accordance with law or not. 11. The Honble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down that the High Court is only to test whether the order of the Rent Controller is in accordance with law or not. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord have also placed reliance on the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1998(2) RCR(Rent) 533 (SC) : AIR 1999 SC 100 and Dattatraya Laxman Kambe v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkune and another, 1999(1) RCR(Rent) 508 (SC) : AIR 1999 SC 2226 to contend that concurrent findings of fact are not open to interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord further contended that it is for the landlord to seek accommodation required by him as he is the best judge regarding the suitability and requirement and for this purpose he placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Raghavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery and Co., 2000(1) RCR(Rent) 135 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 534. 13. In view of what has been discussed above, there is not merit in the present revision petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.