Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1814 (PNJ)

Hans Raj v. Kewal Kishore

2008-10-30

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2008
Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Tenant having failed before learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, and learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, has approached this Court by filing a revision petition on the ground that the findings of fact returned by the two Courts below that the demised premises are required by the landlord for settling his son Saurav and to establish an independent business for him are not borne out from the facts of the case. 2. Briefly stated, Kewal Kishore, landlord of the shop, filed an eviction petition stating therein that the tenant-petitioner was inducted at the rate of Rs. 225/- per month. It was further stated that the property in question was a joint family property and vide family settlement, which was reduced in writing, this property had fallen to the share of the landlord. 3. Eviction petition was filed on two grounds. First that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 18.1.1988 to 31.3.1992 and the other that the shop is required for his own use an occupation as his son Saurav is to be made independent from the family business for setting up goldsmith business for Saurav. Necessary ingredients for invoking personal necessity that the petitioner and his son do not own or possess any other shop in such like area and they have not vacated the same since the commencement of the Rent Act were also pleaded. 4. Notice of the eviction petition was issued. 5. Petitioner-tenant appeared and tendered the rent, which was accepted under protest. In the written statement filed, preliminary objection was taken that the landlord is estopped by his own conduct by filing the petition. The relationship of landlord-tenant was denied. It was stated that the petitioner was inducted as tenant by Ashwani Kumar, brother of the landlord. 6. After the pleadings concluded, following issues were drawn by learned Rent Controller :- 1. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties ? OPP 2. Whether the rent tendered is short and invalid and conditional ? If so, its effect ? OPP 3. Whether the demised premises is required by the petitioner for his personal use and occupation ? OPP 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to ejectment as prayed for ? OPP 5. Relief. 7. Landlord Kewal Kishore appeared as PW.1. He tendered affidavit Ex.PA. If so, its effect ? OPP 3. Whether the demised premises is required by the petitioner for his personal use and occupation ? OPP 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to ejectment as prayed for ? OPP 5. Relief. 7. Landlord Kewal Kishore appeared as PW.1. He tendered affidavit Ex.PA. He also proved certified copy of judgment dated 25.1.1995 Ex.P1; decree sheet Ex.P2; site plan of the shop Ex.P3 and copy of assessment record of house tax as Ex.PX. 8. The two Courts below came to a conclusion that since rent has been tendered, ground of non-payment of rent is not available to the landlord. Relying upon the documents and oral evidence, the two Courts below also concluded that Kewal Kishore is the landlord and relationship of landlord- tenant is proved. 9. After the entire evidence was appreciated, the two Courts below also came to conclusion that the demised premises are required for starting business of goldsmith for Saurav, who at the time of filing of ejectment petition was running a joint business with his father i.e. landlord. The two Courts below also came to conclusion that it is for the landlord to settle his son independently and for that purpose he can be construed as dependent upon the landlord and his personal necessity for settling his son was held to be a good ground for personal necessity of the landlord. 10. Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate, appearing for the tenant-petitioner, has stated that in the petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for eviction it was specifically pleaded that although father and son i.e. landlord and his son Saurav were having joint business but their relations were not cordial. It is further stated that his affidavit Ex.PA it has been also again stated that although landlord and his brother having a joint business but they do not have a cordial relations. Mr. Bajaj stated that in cross-examination, it has surfaced that the father and son are living in one house and they are doing business jointly. Therefore, the plea raised in the eviction petition that relationship father and son were not cordial, is false. 11. A father and a son may live in one house jointly but their perspective regarding conduct of business may be different. Therefore, the plea raised in the eviction petition that relationship father and son were not cordial, is false. 11. A father and a son may live in one house jointly but their perspective regarding conduct of business may be different. Difference of opinion between father and son is nothing but a generation gap. Therefore, their vision and perspective regarding conduct of business may differ. Matter of fact remains that Saurav who has attained maturity was running a business of goldsmith with his father. Needs of family, expanding business and to settle Saurav, landlord Kewal Kishore is well within his rights to get the shop vacated. The tenant cannot state that on account of discrepancy, the landlord should be denied eviction of the premises. As stated earlier, discrepancy is not a such that it will demolish the entire case of the landlord. Even otherwise, argument which has been raised before me has been well appreciated by learned Appellate Authority. 12. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, I cannot substitute my opinion with well founded opinion formulated by the two Courts below. The findings of the two Courts below are neither perverse nor perfunctory and warrant no interference by this Court. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. 13. In the facts and circumstances, Mr. Bajaj has stated that a reasonable time be afforded to the tenant to vacate the premises. Mr. Bajaj further state that since the tenant has been running a tailor business, he has to find alternative premises. Taking these facts into consideration, tenant is granted six months time to vacate the premises provided he file an undertaking that he shall hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord after six months. He shall also deposit the entire arrears of rent on of before 10th of November 2009 and shall also pay the rent every month on or before 7th of each following month. He shall furnish this undertaking before learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar. Order accordingly.