Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2157 (PNJ)

Kamaldeep Kaur v. Bharat Bushan Alias Bharti

2010-07-29

MAHESH GROVER

body2010
Judgment Mahesh Grover, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 7.6.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur whereby the judgment dated 2.3.2006 rendered by the Rent Controller, Gurdaspur has been set aside and the ejectment application filed by the petitioner-landlord for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the demised premises has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner had pleaded that the respondent had not paid the rent from April,1998 onwards and that she wants the demised premises for her own personal use and also for occupation of her husband for business purposes. 3. Since the respondent had tendered the demanded rent, that ground was rendered redundant and, therefore, the only surviving question before the Rent Controller was as to whether the petitioner had a bona finde need to get the demised premises vacated or not. 4. After framing of issues and affording opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence, the Rent Controller concluded that the petitioner had a bona fide need and, therefore, ordered eviction of the respondent, but in appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed that decision and observed that at one point of time, Teja Singh, who was the original owner of the demised premises,had filed an eviction petition on the ground of personal necessity in which he failed; that subsequently, Teja Singh transferred the demised premises in favour of the petitioner whose husband is Davinder Singh; that husband of the petitioner is brother of Joginder Singh, son-in-law of Teja Singh and that the arrangement between the petitioner and Teja Singh was collusive and there was no sale qua the demised premises between them and consequently, the respondent was liable to be evicted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority did not have any jurisdiction to look into the question of title and it was merely required to answer the question of bona fide need of the petitioner and its existence on the basis of evidence led by the parties. He further contended that the findings contained in the impugned judgment are perverse and are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the material on record, it was established that the husband of the petitioner was a Hawker and the demised premises in which the respondent was carrying on his business, were adequate for him to set up his venture. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the material on record, it was established that the husband of the petitioner was a Hawker and the demised premises in which the respondent was carrying on his business, were adequate for him to set up his venture. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the findings of the Appellate Authority are just and proper and that the arrangement between the petitioner and Teja Singh was collusive in nature and the sale deed was a sham transaction and has rightly been appreciated to assess the bona fide need. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Smt. Manjula Sagar v. Wazir Chand Sharma and anr., 2002(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 69 (P&H). 7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the file, I am of the opinion that the Appellate Authority had no authority to go into the question of title, more-so when it was not possessed of sufficient evidence so as to warrant such a conclusion. To my mind, it is dangerous to return a finding on the basis of mere assumption sans evidence. Even otherwise, the Appellate Authority being clearly precluded to ponder over the question of title, had certainly exceeded its jurisdiction when it returned a finding about the transaction between the petitioner and Teja Singh. It was necessarily required to confine itself to the question of bona fide need which was only surviving claim and examine the evidence as such. There is evidence on record as per the admission of the respondent himself that the husband of the petitioner is a hawker engaged in selling of bangles. The demised premises is a shop having dimension of 7 x 10 which prima facie suggests that the same is sufficient for the husband of the petitioner to carry on his activities. That apart, it is a settled principle of law that a tenant cannot dictate a landlord as to whether his wishes are bona fide or not in the eventuality of his requiring the tenanted premises. He can also not question as if the demised premises are adequate or not to carry out the desired venture by the landlord. That apart, it is a settled principle of law that a tenant cannot dictate a landlord as to whether his wishes are bona fide or not in the eventuality of his requiring the tenanted premises. He can also not question as if the demised premises are adequate or not to carry out the desired venture by the landlord. The Supreme Court in Atma S. Berar v. Mukthiar Singh 2003(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 42 (S.C.), observed as under :- "Landlord is the best judge of his residential requirements. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own." Having regard to the aforesaid, this petition is accepted, the impugned judgment is reversed and the judgment of the Rent Controller is upheld. Consequently, the respondent is directed to be ejected from the demised premises immediately.