Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 4454 (PNJ)

Gurdev Singh v. Ajmer Kaur

2006-12-06

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2006
Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. Present revision petition has been filed against an order passed by the learned Appellate Authority vide which the order passed by the learned Rent Controller ordering the eviction of the respondent-tenant has been set aside and the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the `Act) was dismissed. 2. The petitioner sought ejectment of the respondent tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of personal necessity. The ground of non-payment of rent was given up as the tenant tendered the rent in the court on the first date of hearing. However, the learned Rent Controller ordered the eviction on the ground of personal necessity. 3. The case set up by the petitioner was that he required the disputed premises for his personal use and occupation and that he was not occupying any other residential building in the urban area of Ludhiana except the portion of disputed property in which he was running his factory along with his brother. It was further the case of the petitioner that he was residing in the house of his brother in one room. He was at the mercy of his brother who was asking the petitioner to vacate it as the accommodation with him was insufficient. It was also pleaded that he has not vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act in the urban area of Ludhiana. The family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife and two children. The tenant was in possession of one room on the ground floor and Chobara on the first floor. 4. The petition was contested by the respondent on the plea that the petitioner was only owner of half share of the property purchased, therefore, was owner to the extent of 60.5 square yards out of total area of the property measuring 470 square yards. It was also stated by the respondent-tenant that the premises were taken on rent from Sohan Singh previous owner at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month and further the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the respondent against Sohan Singh which was pending in the Civil Court. The personal need was also denied. 5. It was also stated by the respondent-tenant that the premises were taken on rent from Sohan Singh previous owner at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month and further the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the respondent against Sohan Singh which was pending in the Civil Court. The personal need was also denied. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :- 1. What is the rate of rent ? OPA 2. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the premises in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent ? OPA 3. Whether the petitioner required tenanted premises for his personal necessity ? If so its effect ? OPR 4. Relief. 6. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were not pressed as the tenant had tendered the rent. However, on issue No. 3 on appreciation of evidence led the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the premises were bona fide required by the petitioner and ordered the eviction of the petitioner. 7. The respondent filed appeal before the learned Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding on issue No. 3 only on the ground that during the pendency of the petition one shop which was made available to the petitioner was rented out to one Sudershan Kumar and, therefore, in view of this the need of the petitioner could not be said to be bona fide and had to be taken to be an attempt to get the house vacated for renting out the same on higher rent. This finding of the learned Appellate Authority cannot be sustained as the landlord had sought the eviction of the petitioner for personal need for his residential purposes as he was already running his business in the demised premises and, therefore, renting out of a shop which fell vacant during the pendency of the proceedings could not be a ground to reverse the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller on appreciation of evidence. Even otherwise, the provisions of Section 13(3)(i) of the Act are that the landlord should have not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act in the said urban area. The word `such would mean the building which is required for personal use. Even otherwise, the provisions of Section 13(3)(i) of the Act are that the landlord should have not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act in the said urban area. The word `such would mean the building which is required for personal use. In the present case, the petitioner has sought eviction on the ground of personal necessity of the residential portion which was under the tenancy of the tenant and not the shop which was rented out by the petitioner during the pendency of the case. 8. The learned Rent Controller had ordered the eviction by holding that the petitioner was living in one room in the house of his brother and his family consisted of five members including his wife and children. The statement of the petitioner was fully supported by the other witnesses produced by him in support of his case. The finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller is that the petitioner had purchased the property and in case not allowed to take possession of the disputed property the respondents very purpose for the purchase would be frustrated. 9. The learned Appellate Authority has not touched this finding and had reversed this finding merely on the basis of letting out of his shop to Surdershan Kumar during the pendency of the petition. Thus, the order passed by the learned appellate Authority cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. 10. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned Rent Controller is restored. Petition allowed.