Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2561 (PNJ)

Nand Kishore v. Surinder Kaur

2010-09-07

ALOK SINGH

body2010
Judgment Alok Singh, J. 1. The tenant revisionist has invoked the revisionai jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the judgment dated 26.05.2009 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala, whereby eviction petition of the landlady respondent was allowed and revisionist tenant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question within three months from the date of the judgment to the landlady. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that landlady respondent herein filed an eviction petition against the tenant revisionist in the Court of learned Rent Controller, Patiala, inter-alia, alleging therein that shop in question was rented out to the tenant to run karyana business, however, the tenant has started selling cigarettes and biris etc. in the shop in dispute. Landlady and her husband are Amritdhari Sikhs, hence, selling of cigarettes and biris etc. in the shop is causing nuisance and it amounts to change of its user. It is further contended by the landlady that her husband has retired from the job. One adjacent shop is lying vacant, the landlady requires the shop in question so that both the shops can be converted into one big unit by removing the intervening wall to start a commercial college therein. The shop in question is required for personal use and occupation and to meet the resources of income for the petitioner and her husband. 3. The tenant revisionist has contested the eviction petition by way of filing written statement. The tenant revisionist denied the change of user and also denied any need in favour of the landlady. 4. The learned Rent Controller vide judgment dated 13.08.2007 dismissed the eviction petition. Judgment of the learned Rent Controller was challenged by way of a statutory appeal which was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 26.05.2009 by the learned Appellate Authority holding that admittedly husband of the landlady has retired from the job and landlady and her husband is in possession of the adjacent shop and they require demised shop so that after removing wall in between the two shops, it may be converted into the big unit to start the commercial college therein. The learned Appellate Authority did not find favour with the tenant that during the pendency of the eviction petition, landlady has rented out adjacent shop to Balwinder Kumar, who is doing scooter repair works in the adjacent shop, which was said to be in possession of the landlady at the time of filing of eviction petition. 5. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority, tenant has approached this Court. 6. Mr. K.S. Bassi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the tenant-revisionist, has argued that present eviction petition was filed by the landlady in the year 2002 contending therein that the adjacent shop is in possession of the landlady and she needs the demised shop for the purpose of starting commercial school therein by removing intervening wall and making ft a big one unit. Mr. Bassi has drawn attention of this Court to the copy of the eviction petition filed by the present landlady against Balwinder Kumar pertaining to the adjacent shop and argued that in eviction case filed by Surinder Kaur landlady, during the pendency of the present eviction petition, against Balwinder Kumar, she has contended therein that Balwinder Kumar was inducted as tenant in the year 2004. It goes to prove that during the pendency of the present eviction proceedings, adjacent shop, which was said to be in possession of the landlady at the time of filing of eviction petition in the present case, was rented out to Balwinder Kumar in the year 2004. According to Mr. Bassi, if landlady was in need of the demised shop, she would not have rented out the adjacent shop to Balwinder Kumar. According to Mr. Bassi renting out adjacent shop falsify claim of the landlady. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that finding of the learned Appellate Authority that tenant could not prove that adjacent shop was rented out to Balwinder Kumar during the pendency of the present eviction petition is not correct in view of the admission made by the landlady in the eviction petition filed against Balwinder Kumar that adjacent shop was rented out to the Balwinder Kumar in the year 2004. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. P.K. Gupta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the landlady respondent, vehemently argued that in fact, Balwinder Kumar was never inducted as tenant, however, he was helper in the adjacent shop and later on, he started claiming himself to be a tenant, hence, eviction petition was filed against him by the landlady. Mr. Gupta, further argued that even if it is presumed that adjacent shop was let out to Balwinder Kumar during the pendency of the present eviction petition, since eviction petition has already been filed against Balwinder Kumar to meet out of the need of the landlady to start commercial college, hence, it will make no difference and judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority should not be interfered with. 8. Undisputedly, in the present case, eviction petition was preferred in the year 2002, contending that landlady and her husband are in possession of adjacent shop and they require bigger shop to start commercial college, hence, they need demised shop so that intervening wall in between two shops may be removed. From the copy of the eviction petition filed by the landlady against Mr. Balwinder Kumar, it is proved that in the year 2004 landlady has rented out adjacent shop to Mr. Balwinder Kumar. Had there been any need to start commercial college by converting two shops into big unit, landlady would have not rented out adjacent shop to Balwinder Kumar in the year 2004, during the pendency of present eviction proceedings. 9. In view of the above, the alleged need of the landlady that wall in between the two shops shall be removed making two shops into one unit proves to be incorrect and false. No eviction can be directed unless and until alleged need of the demised premises is found to be just, genuine and bona fide. In the opinion of this Court, landlady fails to prove that she requires demised shop for her personal use and occupation. Judgment impugned is liable to be set aside. 10. Present petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 26.05.2009 passed by the learned Appellate Authority shall stand quashed and eviction petition shall stand dismissed.