Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 573 (PNJ)

Narinder Kaur v. Balbir Singh

2011-02-14

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2011
JUDGMENT RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. - The tenants are in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which they have been ordered to vacate the shop (demised premises) on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord. 2. In brief, respondent No.1/landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] for eviction of the petitioners from the demised premises which was let out to one Davinder Pal Singh at the monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. The said Davinder Pal Singh died in the month of September 2001 and his tenancy rights were inherited by the present petitioners. The landlord had sought eviction on the ground of personal necessity besides non-payment of rent etc. and the eviction order was passed by the learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 07.03.2009 by observing as under: - “34. I find merits in these arguments of leaned counsel for the petitioner/landlord because room in which the petitioner is stated to be running business is behind the shop in question and the opening of this room is not towards the main road whereas its opening is towards private passage. This room cannot be considered to be an appropriate place for running business. Moreover, there is no evidence from the side of respondent that the petitioner is having a shop of that nature which the tenant is occupying. The shop in question abuts on main road i.e. Jalandhar Road. Moreover, if the petitioner had raised construction above the shop in question that does not diminish the necessity of the petitioner. Moreover, tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord. When this fact is proved on the file that the petitioner had shifted to Hoshiarpur and evidence, which I have discussed above, from that I have come to the conclusion that he has not having any proper place to run his business, so he requires the shop in question for his personal necessity. Accordingly, both these issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.” 3. The appeal was filed only by widow and one daughter of late Davinder Pal Singh. Accordingly, both these issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.” 3. The appeal was filed only by widow and one daughter of late Davinder Pal Singh. During the pendency of the appeal, they filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] in order to lead additional evidence to prove that the landlord is in possession of a vacant shop. The said application was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority vide its order dated 31.05.2010 after observing as under: - “Further much have been sought to be made out of the contentions that there is room situated on the back side of the demised shop but said factum has already been shown by the landlord in his pleadings as well as in the site plan produced by him before the learned Rent Controller. Therefore, when a specific plea has been taken up by the landlord/respondent that the room on the back side of the shop is not fit for carrying out his business of repair and engineering work, then the evidence sought to be produced by way of additional evidence before this appellate authority is not sustainable.” 4. The appeal was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority on the same day with the following observations: - “The landlord is the best judge of his requirements. The right of the landlord to use the property in any manner permissible by law is unfettered and cannot be questioned by the tenant before the Rent Controller. The landlord may put the property to its optimal use as per his understanding and requirement and the tenant have no locus standi to question the same. Moreover, admittedly the room referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants is on the back side of the shop in question and does not abut the main road, therefore, the same can hardly be presumed to be an appropriate place for carrying the business of repair and Engineering Works.” 5. In the present revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the same issue of the landlord having possession of an alternate shop. It is alleged that in a Civil Suit filed by the landlord against the petitioners on 16.07.2004, the alleged room was mentioned as a shop in para 6 of the plaint. In the present revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the same issue of the landlord having possession of an alternate shop. It is alleged that in a Civil Suit filed by the landlord against the petitioners on 16.07.2004, the alleged room was mentioned as a shop in para 6 of the plaint. It is thus submitted that it is not a room but a shop which is already in possession of the landlord, therefore, there is no question of his personal necessity on the basis of which eviction order has been passed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the landlord is a riot victim who has shifted from Jharkhand to Hoshiarpur. He is the best judge of his requirements and cannot be dictated by the tenants as to how he should use his property. Moreover, it is submitted that after the demise of Davinder Pal Singh, his son Gurpreet Singh and another daughter Pardeep Kaur have not shown any interest in the tenancy rights of Davinder Pal Singh as both of them are residents of United States of America and the appeal has been filed by the widow and another daughter of Davinder Pal Singh who both are not even working in the shop. 7. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 8. The learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord for the use and occupation of the demised premises. The alleged room referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants is on the backside of the shop in question and does not abut the main road and is not found suitable by the landlord for the purpose of his job especially when both the ladies (petitioners) are allegedly not doing any business in the demised premises. It is well settled that the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord as to how he would use the demised premisses. 9. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.