Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2351 (PNJ)

United Commercial Bank v. Lalit Bahri

2010-08-17

ALOK SINGH

body2010
Judgment Alok Singh, J. 1. Present petition is filed by the tenant under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), assailing the order dated 07.03.1986 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, as well as order dated 23.07.1993 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, whereby both the Courts below directed eviction of the tenant- revisionist. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the landlord preferred eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act from the ground floor of the demised premises situated at G.T. Road, Jalandhar City on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent since 01.09.1986; disputed premises is a part of the residential building, hence, it is bona fide needed by the landlord for his own use and occupation; at present the applicant and his brother Deepak Bahri respondent No.3 are living with their families in a house near the Session Court, Jalandhar; their wives quarrel w|th each other. The atmosphere of the bouse is vitiated, which is affecting the health and mind of the applicant and respondent No.3. Therefore, the applicant intends to take separate residence from his brother respondeat No.3 and he intends to take residence in the disputed premises and he bonafidely needs it for use and occupation by his family. It is also averred in the eviction petition that applicant is not in possession of any other residential accommodation within the municipal limits of Jalandhar, nor he has vacated one. 3. Tenants contested the application and tendered entire arrears of rent with interest and cost as assessed by the Court. It is averred by the tenant that landlord does not require demised premises for use and occupation by him and his family and it is further stated that applicant and his brother respondent No.3 are living in a house situated opposite to the Session Court, Jalandhar which is sufficient for their residence and alleged need is neither bonafide nor genuine. 4. Learned Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 07.03.1989 did not find favour with the landlord on the ground of arrears of rent. However, learned Rent Controller found need of the landlord as genuine and bona fide. 4. Learned Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 07.03.1989 did not find favour with the landlord on the ground of arrears of rent. However, learned Rent Controller found need of the landlord as genuine and bona fide. Learned Rent Controller also placed reliance on the judgment of Full Bench of this Court reported in (1986-1)89 Punjab Law Reporter, - Hari Mittal v. B.M. Sikka and has observed that even if a residential building is leased out for a business or trade purpose without obtaining the permission of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act, it continues to be a residential building and the landlord is entitled to get it vacated for his personal use and occupation. It is further held by the learned Rent Controller that since demised premises is a part of a residential building, it shall be deemed to be a residential building only. It is also held by the learned Rent Controller that before letting out of the building to the tenant, the grandfather of the applicant used to reside in this premises. Learned Rent Controller also found that at the time of filing the eviction petition, landlord was in occupation only two rooms in House No. 193, Opposite Session Court, Jalandhar, while the drawing and dinning room are common with the two brothers and that they use the same kitchen. 5. Learned Rent Controller further found that if the landlord wants to shift from the joint house which he was sharing with his brothers and to shift in an independent house then need of the landlord cannot be said to be mere desire and such need shall be genuine and bona fide. 6. The learned Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 23.07.1993 also agreed with the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller on the question of bona fide and genuine need. 7. Learned counsel for the tenant-revisionist vehemently argued that of course, the demised premises which is a hall on the ground floor is a part of big residential kothi, however, it was let out to the Bank to use for commercial purpose by the bank, hence, it cannot be directed to be vacated by the tenant merely because landlord wants it for his residential purposes. Learned counsel for the tenant further argued that if landlord is having his own house which he is sharing with his two brothers, he is not entitled to evict the tenant merely because he wants to live comfortably in the demised premises. 8. During the arguments, it is stated by the learned counsel for the parties that judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Mittal (supra) still holds good. In the considered view of this Court if a residential premises is leased out for a business or trade purpose without obtaining the permission of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act, it continues to be a residential building and the landlord is entitled to get it vacated for his personal use and occupation and same is ratio of Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Hari Mittal (supra). Moreover, when this building was constructed, necessary permission was obtained for constructing the building from the Municipality and in that permission the building was shown as residential building. Since hall is a part of residential building, it can very well be got vacated by the landlord from the tenant for his personal use and occupation. 9. In the opinion of this Court, if landlord does not want to share a residence with his other brothers because of some estrange relations between the wives of the brothers and because of shortage of the accommodation in the joint residential house then landlord has every right to shift to his independent house to reside peacefully. In the opinion of this Court, tenant cannot dictate the landlord that landlord should keep on residing in the joint house with the family of his brothers. Since both the Courts below recorded concurrent finding of fact in favour of the landlord that need is bona fide and genuine, in the opinion of this Court, the same should not be disturbed while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, having perused the record, I am satisfied that need set up by the landlord is wholly proved. Petition is devoid of merit, hence is dismissed. Moreover, having perused the record, I am satisfied that need set up by the landlord is wholly proved. Petition is devoid of merit, hence is dismissed. However, keeping in the mind that tenant - Bank needs sufficient time to shift building, I direct that tenant - revisionist shall hand over the vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord by 31.12.2010 and meanwhile, tenant shall keep on paying the entire rent to the landlord by the 10th day of every month.