Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1055 (PNJ)

Amar Iqbal Singh v. Bawa Ram

2010-03-03

S.D.ANAND

body2010
Judgment S.D.Anand, J. 1 The respondent-landlord filed a plea for ejectment of tenant Amrik Singh from the tenanted premises on various counts including the non-payment of rent and personal necessity. There also was an averment that the tenant aforementioned has ceased to occupy the premises for the last more than four years. The petition was allowed. It was held that the ground pertaining to the nonpayment of rent ceased to be available as due rent came to be tendered. Qua personal necessity, it was held that the tenanted premises are required by the legal representatives of tenant for their own use and occupation. It was further held that the respondent-landlord had not been able to prove that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises. The locus standi of the legal representatives to continue with the petition was upheld. 2 In appeal, however, learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding and non suited legal representatives by holding that they had not been to prove that they required the premises for their own use and occupation. In that context, the learned Appellate Authority observed that the five legal representatives of the deceased were proved to be working elsewhere and there was nothing in the petition to indicate who out of the legal representatives required the dispute premises for own use and occupation. 3 The legal representatives are in revision against that finding. 4 I have heard Shri B.R.Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have carefully gone through the file. 5 None entered appearance on behalf of the respondent to assist this Court inspite of the fact that the respondent had been served for appearance before this Court on 8.9.2009. 6 Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners/legal representatives, argues that the entire approach of the learned Appellate Authority was violative of the fact that the petitioners herein had already been brought on record and they had also been allowed to amend the petition. The amendment, it was argued had enabled them to plead in the course of the petition that the tenanted premises are required by them for their own use and occupation. The amendment, it was argued had enabled them to plead in the course of the petition that the tenanted premises are required by them for their own use and occupation. 7 It is apparent, from a perusal of the learned Trial Court record, that the petitioners-legal representatives had obtained the leave of the Controller to amend the petition whereby they had made an averment that they required the disputed premises for their own use and occupation. In that view of things, it was not appropriate for the learned Appellate Authority to hold that the petitioners/legal representatives could not make use of the averment by their predecessor-in-interest that the latter required it for their own use and occupation and the ground ceased to exist with the death of the latter. A legal representative of the deceased-landlord-Sarabjit Singh, entered witness box as his own witness as AW-5 and testified on oath that premises are required to enable the petitioner-legal representative to start the profession of gold smith. In the course of cross examination, he did concede that he is presently doing the job of gold smith but he also clarified that he is doing that job as labour. 8 There is no rebuttal on the part of the respondent-landlord in that behalf. The present is, thus, not a case where the petitioner-legal representatives are proved on record to be engaged in a fruitful profession pursuit in any premises in their own right. Even if they are working elsewhere, they are doing it on a small time basis and there is no warrant for the proposition that the possession of the tenanted premises should be denied to them just because they are earning their living by adoption of those small time exercise. 9 It is, thus, apparent from the material obtaining on the file that finding of reversal recorded by the learned Appellate Authority was for reasons which can not be described to be appropriate in character. The Appellate Authority could not have validly disabled the petitioners-legal representatives from fruitfully utilizing the tenanted premises for running their business as gold smith. 10 The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 6.2.2008 shall stand set aside. The order recorded by the learned Rent Controller dated 31.8.2006 shall stand restored.