Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2500 (PNJ)

Charanjit Singh v. Karnail Singh

2010-08-31

ALOK SINGH

body2010
Judgment Alok Singh, J. 1. Present petition is filed by the landlord, challenging the judgment dated 06.03.2007 passed by learned Rent Controller, Rupnagar, as well as judgment dated 10.11.2007 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Rupnagar. 2. In brief, eviction petition was preferred by the landlord - revisionist herein alleging therein that tenant has not paid rent from 01.04.2001 till the date of filing the eviction petition and applicant is degree holder of B.Tech Computer and is doing a private job and he requires the shop in dispute for his own personal use and occupation. 3. Eviction petition was contested by the tenant and tenant-respondent herein denied the alleged need of the landlord and has also denied that tenant is in arrears of rent. 4. Learned Rent Controller, vide judgment dated 06.03.2007, in paragraph no.22 has held as under:. "......Petitioner is doing service at Gurgaon which is known as Capital of Information Technology, where there is a big scope for a computer engineer to flourish. It is unbelievable that a computer engineer will leave a job at Gurgaon and will like to start a new business at a small town like Morinda, where there is no potentially of sale and purchase of computers. Similarly it is already in evidence that petitioner was born at Chandigarh he got his education at Chandigarh and he was brought-up at Chandigarh and Chandigarh is such a city where there is no much potentially of business in computers. Not only this a nearby satellite town like Mohali has also been declared as city for information and technology park directly linked with computers and other advance technology. Parents of petitioner are also residing at Chandigarh and the need of the petitioner to start his business at Morinda does not seem to be genuine. Moreover, no project report has been prepared so far showing any steps taken by the petitioner for starting his computer business at Morinda. The petitioner has failed to convince that shop in dispute is required for his personal necessity or that his need is genuine. It is therefore held that petitioner has no bona fide requirement regarding shop in question..." 5. The finding of the learned Rent Controller has been approved by the learned Appellate Authority. 6. Undisputedly, landlord is engaged in the private job. Landlord is stating on Oath that he has every intention to start his own business in the demised shop. It is therefore held that petitioner has no bona fide requirement regarding shop in question..." 5. The finding of the learned Rent Controller has been approved by the learned Appellate Authority. 6. Undisputedly, landlord is engaged in the private job. Landlord is stating on Oath that he has every intention to start his own business in the demised shop. 7. The Apex Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1 (1999-1) 121PLR 805 (SC) 1998(8) S.C.C. 119, in paragraph 14 while interpreting the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, has held as under:- "When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord in bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself." 8. It is well settled law that when landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is not open for the tenant to dictate terms of the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself or to continue with his private job. It is not open to the Rent Controller to say that landlord has no need to shift in the shop in question in a small town after leaving private job from Gurgaon. Landlord has every right to leave job and to start his own independent business. No law provides that landlord can not leave his job to start independent business. 9. Landlord has every right to leave job and to start his own independent business. No law provides that landlord can not leave his job to start independent business. 9. The Apex Court in the matter of Vinod Kumar Arora v. Smt. Surjit Kaur, 2 1987(3) S.C.C. 711, in paragraph 12 has held that the proposition of law put forward by the counsel (Hira Lal Vallabhram v. Sheth Kasturbhai Lalbhai and others, 3 A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1653), is undoubtedly a well settled one but then it must be remembered that the rule would apply only where the findings have been rendered with reference to facts and not on the basis of non-existent material and baseless assumption. It is further held that if findings have been rendered either on non-existent or fictitious material, they cannot be therefore construed as findings of fact and once they cease to be findings of fact, they stand denuded of their binding force on the appellate or revisional Court. 10. The Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Ahuja v. United India. Insurance Company,1 (1999-1)121 PLR 805 (SC), 1988(8) S.C.C. 119, in paragraph 11 has held that no doubt while exercising revisional jurisdiction reappraisal of evidence can be made but that should be for the limited purpose to ascertain whether the conclusion arrived at by the fact finding Court is wholly unreasonable. 11. The conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below that landlord has no bonafide is based on non-existence material and baseless assumption. Assumption and presumption by both the Courts below that landlord who is in private job in Gurgaon will not like to shift to a small town to start business is baseless. Once landlord is stating before the Court that he intends to leave job and wants to start his independent business then need of landlord should always be presumed as correct. 12. In my considered view, both the Courts below have committed jurisdictional error and both of them have exceeded in their jurisdiction by drawing the presumption that there is no need for the landlord to leave private job in Gurgaon and to shift to small place and start his own independent business in shop in question. 12. In my considered view, both the Courts below have committed jurisdictional error and both of them have exceeded in their jurisdiction by drawing the presumption that there is no need for the landlord to leave private job in Gurgaon and to shift to small place and start his own independent business in shop in question. If landlord is alleging that he wants to establish his own independent business after leaving the job, the need of the landlord cannot be said to be mala fide and it should always be presumed to be bona fide. In view of this, judgments of both the Courts below cannot be sustained in j the eyes of law. 13. Present petition is allowed. Impugned judgments are quashed. Eviction petition stands allowed. However, in the interest of justice, two months time is granted to the tenant to handover peaceful vacant possession to the landlord.