Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1894 (PNJ)

Ashok Kumar v. Radhey Shyam

2008-11-11

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2008
Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Petitioner-landlord had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against Radhey Shyam son of Ram Singh, tenant. The shop is situated on the Railway Road, Safidon Mandi and details and description of the shop have been given in the head note of the petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioner-landlord that the shop was rented to the tenant on 1.4.1992 at the rate of Rs.2,100/- per month. It was further stated that tenant is running a business of Cloth Merchant in the demised shop. 3. Eviction of the tenant was sought on the two grounds that the tenant had failed to make the payment of rent outstanding and the Civil Revision No. 4613 of 2008 2 tenant had not deposited the rent in the Court. Second ground taken therein was that the shop in question was required for his personal use and occupation. 4. Notice was issued. 5. Tenant appeared. Written statement was filed in which it was stated that even though Ashok Kumar is the landlord but Smt. Kalawati was also landlady for the shop in question and she has died and her legal representatives were not impleaded. It was further stated that initially the rent was Rs.650/- per month, and later on the same was enhanced to Rs.900/- per month. It was further stated that on 13.4.2004, the Court had assessed the rent as Rs.900/- per month and the same was paid by the tenant along with house tax and expenses. It was further stated that at the time when the tenancy was created, Rs.30,000/- was paid as pagri to the mother of the landlord and now the said amount of security is liable to be adjusted. A counter-claim either for refund of Rs.30,000/- or for adjustment of the same was also raised. 6. Landlord himself appeared as PW.1, Rattan Lal was examined as PW.2 and Roshan Lal was examined as PW.3. 7. Respondent examined Ved Parkash as RW.1, Kala Singh, Copyist as RW.2 and the tenant himself appeared as RW.3. 8. In the Court, Ashok Kumar and his witnesses stated that the shop is required for personal use of his nephew. It was held that this part is beyond the pleadings. 7. Respondent examined Ved Parkash as RW.1, Kala Singh, Copyist as RW.2 and the tenant himself appeared as RW.3. 8. In the Court, Ashok Kumar and his witnesses stated that the shop is required for personal use of his nephew. It was held that this part is beyond the pleadings. It was further noticed by learned Rent Controller that the landlord has 10/12 shops. It was further noticed that the landlord has failed to explain that the shop is required for his personal use. Ashok Kumar landlord has denied that he is owner of several shops but admitted that he was sitting with his father on the shop of Commission Agent. He further admitted that the rent of the shop in question was fixed at Rs.900/-. Aggrieved against the same, the appeal was filed. 9. In para 12 of the judgment of learned Appellate Authority, it was held as under :- "12. There was not even a whisper that the premises were required for use and occupation of nephew of the landlord much less that he was to conduct some business. Pleadings are required to be clear and transparent so as to allow the other party to put-forth its stand properly and effectively. Looking from another angle, not only the pleadings are silent with regard to details of the nephew and his alleged requirement to use the premises for business, name, age, qualification and his experience in running business etc. are also relevant facts which have not been mentioned about nephew of the landlord". Learned Appellate Authority further held that Ashok Kumar is having one shop in Grain Market, which was owned by his father and is also having another shop in which he was conducting the business of Commission Agent. Learned Appellate Authority stated that the statement of Radhey Shyam that Ashok Kumar has 11 shops, has not been successfully challenged. Learned Appellate Authority further held that the nephew in no way can be termed as part of the family of landlord. Learned Appellate Authority further held that the landlord had misused the process of Court. The landlord had earlier instituted petition seeking ejectment of the tenant, wherein ground of personal necessity was given up during the appeal proceedings and litigation has finally culminated when this Court passed order dated 20.3.2006. In view of this learned Appellate Authority has rightly awarded the cost also. 10 I have heard Mr. The landlord had earlier instituted petition seeking ejectment of the tenant, wherein ground of personal necessity was given up during the appeal proceedings and litigation has finally culminated when this Court passed order dated 20.3.2006. In view of this learned Appellate Authority has rightly awarded the cost also. 10 I have heard Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 11. In view of the concurrent findings of facts referred by the two Courts below that the landlord is possessed of the other shops and requirement of shop for nephew is a made up story and especially the fact that in 2006, the revision petition vide Ex.R3 was decided by this Court and the ground of personal necessity was not persisted with, no interference is warranted. Mr. Jindal has failed to dislodge the findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below. + > 12. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed.