Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2123 (PNJ)

Roshan Singh v. Kuldip Singh

2008-12-16

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2008
Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Kuldip Singh had filed an eviction petition against tenant Roshan Singh, who is carrying on the business of Tailor from the shop owned by the landlord. The rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per month. It was pleaded in the eviction petition that landlord was a skilled labourer in the Municipal Corporation, Patiala. He retired from the services on 31.7.2001. It was pleaded in the ejectment petition that the shop is required for personal use and occupation as the landlord intended to start business of repairing electric goods as Electrician. Landlord also intended to settle his son Tarandeep Singh who had completed the apprenticeship of Air Conditioner repair. Necessary ingredients that no other shop is owned or possessed or has been vacated were pleaded in the eviction petition. 2. Notice of the eviction petition has been issued. 3. Tenant appeared. He stated that rent has been paid upto February 2002. No amount of rent is due. He denied that he is liable to pay house tax. Preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the petition and the petition has not been verified in consonance with the High Court Rules & Orders, have been raised. He further stated that the parties are bound by compromise/agreement dated 10.6.1988 Ex.CX. Relationship of landlord & tenant and rate of rent has been admitted. On merits, it was denied that the landlord was a skilled labourer in the Municipal Corporation or he retired from the services on 31.7.2001. Personal need of the landlord for settling his son Tarandeep Singh, who wanted to start the business of repair of Air Conditioners, was also denied. 4. Replication was filed, in which averments made in the eviction petition were reiterated and that of written statement were denied. Thereafter, learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondent has not paid arrears of rent, interest and house tax, if so, its effect? OPP 2.Whether petitioner is in personal necessity of the tenanted premises? OPP 3. Whether petitioner is entitled for possession after ejectment of respondent ? OPP 4. Whether petition is not maintainable ? OPR 5. Whether petition is correctly verified, if so, its effect ? OPR. 6. Whether petition is not maintainable in view of the compromise dated 10.6.1988 executed between the parties in another rent petition? OPR 7. Relief." 5. Landlord examined himself as AW.1. OPP 4. Whether petition is not maintainable ? OPR 5. Whether petition is correctly verified, if so, its effect ? OPR. 6. Whether petition is not maintainable in view of the compromise dated 10.6.1988 executed between the parties in another rent petition? OPR 7. Relief." 5. Landlord examined himself as AW.1. He also examined Balbir Singh as AW.2 and Surinder Pal as AW.3. Original letter Ex.P1 issued by the Municipal Corporation was produced and proved regarding date of retirement. Legal notice was produced as Ex.P2, postal receipt and UPC receipts were also produced as Ex.P3 & Ex.P4. 6. AW.2 Balbir Singh corroborated the version of the landlord. 7. AW.3 Surinder Pal came from the office of Municipal Corporation, Patiala. He proved that the landlord was skilled worker and his date of retirement was 31.7.2001. 8. Learned Rent Controller held that tenant was not in arrears of rent. However, taking into consideration the date of retirement and that his son is unemployed the Court found even though Tarandeep Singh had gone to Dubai, personal necessity of landlord is made out as he intend to start the business of repair of electric goods. The Court also took into consideration previous compromise and held that it nowhere bar the landlord to claim the possession of the shop on ground of personal necessity. 9. Aggrieved against the same, an appeal was filed. Learned Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of learned Rent Controller and held that the shop is required by the landlord for his personal necessity. 10. Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has stated that the experience certificate by the landlord that he is a skilled worker has not been proved. Therefore, the ground that he has to start the business of repair of electric goods is not made out. 11. In the present case, AW.3 Surinder Pal was examined from the office of Municipal Corporation, Patiala, and he has proved the date of retirement of the landlord and the fact that the landlord was a skilled worker. Therefore, the two Courts below have rightly given a concurrent finding of fact that the landlord require the premises for his own use and occupation. 12. A view formulated by the two Courts below is one view which is possible and the same cannot be held to be perverse. Therefore, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, no interference is warranted. Therefore, the two Courts below have rightly given a concurrent finding of fact that the landlord require the premises for his own use and occupation. 12. A view formulated by the two Courts below is one view which is possible and the same cannot be held to be perverse. Therefore, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, no interference is warranted. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. 13. However, tenant is granted two months time to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord.