Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 153 (PNJ)

Ram Lal v. Santosh Kumar Puri

2009-01-20

K.KANNAN

body2009
Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The need of the landlord for eviction for setting up a business at the demised property was upheld by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The need spelt out was that after this retirement from the service in Indian Tourism Department Corporation, he had planned to establish a hotel business. He had also stated that his son, at the time of presentation of the petition, was unemployed and he would associate his son in business. 2. The grievance of the revision petitioner was that an important subsequent event namely the gainful employment secured by the son had not been properly appreciated. It was his further contention that the landlord was at all times interested in only securing a higher rental, as his past conduct would show and there was really no bona fide need for the landlord. It was his contention that the landlord had been a resident at Delhi, away from Chandigarh where the property was situate. He would urge that the approach of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in looking for proof from the tenant to establish that there were no bona fides on the part of landlord was wrong as per law; it was the landlord who had to establish his bona fides. 3. To support his contention that the landlord was only interested in securing higher rentals every time, he referred to the fact that in the first document and the tenancy in the year 1978, the rent had been stipulated at Rs. 1,700/- and subsequent rent deed of the year 1987 (Annexure R-1), the rent had been increased to Rs. 2,200/- and still later when a rent deed was made in the year 1992 (Annexure R-2), the rent had been increased to Rs. 4,000/-. The periodical increase in rent suggested the propensity of the landlord to demand higher rentals and the plea for eviction for personal requirement was merely a ruse. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner questioned the bona fides of the landlord also by pointing out that the landlord was in a legal department in the Indian Tourism Department Corporation and he had no experience in the hotel business itself. Even as regards the son, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that he gained qualification in Information Technology and had been employed at Bangalore in HCL, a software company. Even as regards the son, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that he gained qualification in Information Technology and had been employed at Bangalore in HCL, a software company. At the Appellate Court, he had made an amendment to his written statement, introducing the plea that sons requirement as set forth in the rental petition no longer survived, in view of the subsequent development. On the bidding of the tenant, the landlord also produced copy of the passport and the appointment letter of his son which showed that he had been employed elsewhere away from Chandigarh and that he had also undertaken foreign jaunts in pursuance of his employment. 5. The learned Senior Counsel relied on several decisions of the Honble Supreme Court which outline the relevance of subsequent event in deciding rent control matters. The decision in Manpreet Arora v. Jagan Nath, 2000(1) RCR(Rent) 219 (P&H) dealt with the case of alleged requirement of a landlady, who at the time of presentation of the petition had school going children but, by the time when the case was taken up and disposed of, the children had grown up and the husband himself had taken up job elsewhere far away from the place of eviction and consequently the requirement had come to an end. The decision in Baba Kashinath Bhinge v. Samast Lingayat Gayali, 1995(1) RCR(Rent) 518 (SC) referred to the proposition that decree could not be passed if the need did not continue to exist at the time of passing of the decree. Smt. Shanti Devi and another v. Swami Ashanand and another, 2003(1) RCR(Rent) 78 (SC) dealt with the landlords requirement under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 which stated that the need of a landlord to construct a temple to earn a livelihood from the offerings was found to be an activity that came within the meaning of profession, trade or calling. These decisions do not, in my view, support the contention of the tenant inasmuch as the subsequent event of the sons employment has been explained by the landlord by stating in evidence that the son was not expected to remain unemployed during the continuation of proceedings and that he had always an intention to forsake his job and join him in a business as soon as the property fell vacant. The requirement of the landlord must be taken in the manner expressed and it shall not be possible for a tenant to contend by the mere fact that son was said to be unemployed at the time of filing of the petition and when he took up employment, the need also should be taken as having come to an end. I have already pointed out that the petitioner had stated that property was principally required for starting his own business and the association of the son in the business was merely stated as an additional fact. The property itself was not sought only for providing employment to his son. The need of the landlord could not, therefore, be said to have come to an end, the situations that existed in every one of the decisions referred to above and consequently the landlords requirement could not be said to be not bona fide. 6. The learned Senior Counsel also makes issue out of the fact that for a specific averment made through amendment in the written statement setting out the subsequent event of the son taking up an employment had not been denied by filing a rejoinder by the petitioner and the failure of landlord to take opportunity to file a rejoinder ought to mean that the landlord had also accepted the contentions raised by the tenant. The effect of not filing rejoinder has been adverted to in decisions in Salig Ram and another v. Shiv Shanker and others, AIR 1971 P&H 437; Mateshwar Dayal v. Amar Singh, AIR 1983 P&H 197 and Rajesh Devan v. Soma Wati Aggarwal, 2008(1) RCR(Civil) 411 : 2007(2) RCR(Rent) 693 : (2007-4)148 PLR 655. The effect of not filing rejoinder as constituting an admission must be always understood in context of the particular statement made by a party that goes unrefuted. In this case the pleading that has given place through amendment is to the effect that the son had taken an employment elsewhere and that his need no longer existed. This fact that the son had taken an employment elsewhere was not required to be refuted for, it could have gone against the grain of truth. In this case the pleading that has given place through amendment is to the effect that the son had taken an employment elsewhere and that his need no longer existed. This fact that the son had taken an employment elsewhere was not required to be refuted for, it could have gone against the grain of truth. So long as the landlord had already explained that even if the son employed elsewhere, he had always intended to forsake the job and join him when the property fell vacant, nothing turned around by the fact that the landlord did not file a reply to the contentions made in amendment to the pleadings of the written statement. 7. The bona fides of the landlord was also tested by reference to the fact that the landlord, according to the tenant, was not residing at Chandigarh where the property was situated but he was residing only at Delhi. The landlord did not deny the existence of a house at Delhi but he was categorical in his statement that he was residing only in his cousins house at Chandigarh at the address given in the case file. He has also produced proof of the fact of his residence through the entry in the ration card. The weight of the documentary evidence through ration card was sought to be discounted by the tenant by suggesting that he had made enquiries at the address found in the petition but he found there was some other lady in that house who had no knowledge about the residence of the petitioner. He was also reported to have secured information from the police that the landlord was not known to be a resident at Chandigarh. These contentions had been adverted to both by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court and rejected principally on the ground that the so-called meeting with a lady at the address mentioned and her alleged ignorance of the residence of petitioner had not been proved by examining that lady. As regards the so-called complaint and report from the police, the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had reasoned that he tenant had not taken steps to summon the document and the report of the police. Both the Authorities below relied on the entry at the ration card as affording sufficient proof for the residence of the petitioner. As regards the so-called complaint and report from the police, the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had reasoned that he tenant had not taken steps to summon the document and the report of the police. Both the Authorities below relied on the entry at the ration card as affording sufficient proof for the residence of the petitioner. This, in my view, is again a definite rendering of a factual finding that cannot be assailed in revision, unless there was a complete lack of reasoning. 8. Every one of the contentions raised by the tenant in revision finds adequate answers by appropriate reasoning of the Authorities below. I have adverted to all of them in my discussion above and I am of the firm view that the decisions suffer from no illegality or impropriety to suffer a reversal of the final result in the adjudication. 9. The revision petition is dismissed. Four months time is granted for eviction. No costs.