Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 94 (PNJ)

Mohan Lal Aggarwal v. Atinder Mohan Khosla

2006-01-11

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2006
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Petitioner Mohan Lal Aggarwal (tenant) has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the orders 24.5.2000 and 18.10.2005 passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority respectively ordering his ejectment from the demised premises on the ground of bonafide requirement of the respondent-landlord. 2. Earlier, vide order dated 2.12.2003, this revision petition was dismissed by the Court, but the Civil Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was allowed by the Hon ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.3.2004 and the matter was remanded to this Court for deciding it afresh on merit by another Judge of this Court. Hence, this petition has been listed before this Bench. 3. I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the orders passed by the Courts below. 4. In this case, the premises in question, which is a big room with a toilet on the ground floor of the building, was let out to the petitioner in the month of September, 1979 on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. The petitioner is running a small scale industry in the demised premises. In the year 1996, the respondent-landlord filed the ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity of his family. The family of the respondent landlord was consisting of his wife, two daughters and one son. It was stated that the petitioner is a patient of Angina pectoris and was under treatment. His wife also stated to be patient of Arthritis of both the knee joints. She was advised not to go up stairs. Therefore, the petitioner and his wife intended to shift to the ground floor. It was stated that the respondent was in occupation of two rooms on the first floor and one room on the second floor. Even the said accommodation was stated to be insufficient for the family. It was stated that brother of the petitioner is Colonel and his sister is married and the respondent-landlord was having no independent room for their stay when they visit the house of the respondent. 5. The petitioner-tenant contested the aforesaid ejectment petition. Even the said accommodation was stated to be insufficient for the family. It was stated that brother of the petitioner is Colonel and his sister is married and the respondent-landlord was having no independent room for their stay when they visit the house of the respondent. 5. The petitioner-tenant contested the aforesaid ejectment petition. The arrears of rent was tendered, therefore, the ground of ejectment due to non-payment of rent did not survive. It was stated that the demised premises was given for commercial purpose and the building is a non-residential building, which is being used for commercial purpose by the petitioner. Therefore, he cannot be ejected on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord. Regarding the personal necessity of the landlord, it was stated that the same is not bonafide, as there is sufficient accommodation with the landlord and on that ground, the ejectment of the petitioner can not be ordered. 6. Both the courts below passed the order of ejectment while holding that the premises in question is required by the respondent-landlord for the personal necessity of his family. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made two fold submissions. Firstly that the building in question, of which the demised premises is a part, is a non-residential building, therefore, for such a building, the landlord cannot seek ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. Secondly that both the Courts below have wrongly found that the respondent-landlord requires the demised premises for the personal necessity of his family. The finding regarding bonafide requirement of the landlord recorded by the Courts below is not sustainable as it is contrary to the evidence on the record. 8. After hearing the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below, I do not find any merit in any of the submissions raised by counsel for the petitioner. 9. In this case, the demised premises is part of the building, which was constructed for residential purpose in a residential area. Though no rent note has been placed on record by the petitioner, which indicates the purpose for which it was let out initially, but it appears that from the very beginning, the petitioner is running a small scale industry in the demised premises. Though no rent note has been placed on record by the petitioner, which indicates the purpose for which it was let out initially, but it appears that from the very beginning, the petitioner is running a small scale industry in the demised premises. It has been found by both the Courts below that the tenant had been admitting it to be a portion of residential building and had been moving application for water connection for it as residential building. It has also been found that even if the building was let out for non-residential purpose without obtaining permission from the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act, the demised premises will continue to be a residential building and the landlord will be entitled to seek eviction for the purpose of bonafide requirement. Both the Courts below have also found that the demised premises is part of the residential building. In this regard, law is well settled. If a building is being used for both the purposes i.e residential and non-residential, the same will be treated as residential building and can not be considered as non-residential building alone, as has been so held by this Court in Harjit Singh v. Daya Ram Sat Narain (2003-1)133 P.L.R. 579 and Raj Kumar Gambir v. Kanwar Sain Jain (2003-2)134 P.L.R. 356. Even the Hon ble Apex Court in Rakesh Vij v. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi and Ors. (2005-3)141 P.L.R. 676 (S.C.), has held that the landlord can seek ejectment of the tenant from the non-residential building on the ground of personal bonafide necessity. Thus, I do not find any force in the contention of counsel for the petitioner that in this case, the respondent-landlord can not seek ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of bonafide personal necessity from the demised premises, because it is being used by the petitioner for non-residential purpose. 10. The second submission raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case, the requirement of personal necessity by the respondent-landlord is not bonafide is not tenable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the demised premises is situated at Jalandhar and the respondent is in Government service and throughout his career, he never remained posted at Jalandhar, therefore, the premises is not required for his personal use. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the demised premises is situated at Jalandhar and the respondent is in Government service and throughout his career, he never remained posted at Jalandhar, therefore, the premises is not required for his personal use. Learned Counsel submitted that respondent is having two rooms on the first floor and one room on the second floor in his possession. Now, both of his daughters are married, therefore, the accommodation available with him at this stage is sufficient and ejectment of the petitioner in the changed circumstances on the ground of personal necessity is not justifiable. Regarding the ailment of the respondent and his wife, it has been submitted that the evidence led by the respondent in this regard is not sufficient to hold that the respondent and his wife have been medically advised to reside on the ground floor. In my opinion, this contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is also without any merit. Admittedly, there is one big room on the ground, which is demised premises, two rooms on the first floor and one room on the second floor. It is also undisputed that there are five members in the family of the respondent. Now his daughters have been married and the son who is of marriageable age is yet to be married. The respondent is though employed in Government service, but is going to retire in July, 2006. AW1-Dr. G.S. Mann, Medical Specialist, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar has proved that the respondent is patient of Angina pectoris and his wife Smt. Lata Khosla has been diagnosed for arthritis of both knee joints and she has been advised not going up stairs and the respondent has been advised to avoid exertion. The medical certificate to this effect has been duly proved by him. Thus, the landlord has sufficiently proved that the demised premises which is situated on the ground floor, is required by him and his family for the personal necessity. Even if his two daughters have been married, it will not reduce his bonafide requirement as the married daughters frequently visit their parents with their husbands. It has also been stated by the landlord that his brothers and sisters also frequently visit his place of residence. Even if his two daughters have been married, it will not reduce his bonafide requirement as the married daughters frequently visit their parents with their husbands. It has also been stated by the landlord that his brothers and sisters also frequently visit his place of residence. For that purpose also, he requires more accommodation Keeping in view all these factors, I find that there is no illegality and perversity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below that the demised premises is required by the respondent-landlord for the personal necessity of his family. In these circumstances, the personal necessity of the respondent cannot be said to be not bonafide. 11. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant petition. Dismissed.