Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1169 (PNJ)

Arun Vig v. Maya Guglani

2012-09-10

JASWANT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.: - Petitioner/tenant has filed the instant revision petition against the ejectment orders passed by the Courts below, whereby the ejectment application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act) filed by respondent/landlady (since deceased) on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt. vide order dated 22.7.2009 and the appeal filed by the tenant/petitioner was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala vide order dated 24.11.2011. 2. Facts necessary for the decision of the present revision petition are that respondent/landlady filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act alleging therein that demised premises-a residential house was originally owned by her son Suresh Guglani, who died on 18.10.1995 being issueless and unmarried and after his death the demised premises was transferred in the name of the respondent/landlady. The demised premises was let out to the petitioner/tenant vide rent note dated 27.5.1995 at a monthly rent of Rs.2500/- payable in advance besides water and electricity charges. Though it was alleged by the respondent/landlady that the petitioner/tenant neither tendered nor paid rent for the last seven years, however, she restricted her claim to recover rent for 36 months i.e. from 1.8.2003 to 31.7.2006 alongwith interest and costs. Besides that the ejectment of the petitioner/tenant was sought on the ground of personal necessity by alleging that she was residing with her another son Naresh Guglani who had his own family and that she intended to enjoy her own house as she did not want to live at the mercy of her son. 3. Petitioner/tenant contested the claim by taking various preliminary objections. On merits it was alleged that the rent note was a fake and fabricated document; the demised premises was taken on rent @ Rs.1000/- p.m.; after the death of Suresh Guglani he paid rent to Naresh Guglani upto 31.7.2006, who did not issue any receipt; an inter pleader suit was filed by the petitioner/tenant; rent had been tendered by him under protest for the period claimed by the landlady at the agreed rent of Rs.1000/- with interest and costs. Regarding personal necessity, it was alleged by the tenant that respondent/landlady had several houses at her disposal; even deceased Suresh Guglani was residing in other house when he let out the demised premises to the petitioner/tenant; the ejectment petition had been filed just to get the demised premises vacated as the respondent/landlady was residing with her son in another residential house having ten rooms; the landlady was aged and unable to live alone as she required help every now and then. 4. Respondent/landlady filed replication. On the pleading of the parties issues were framed. Both sides led evidence in support of their respective pleas. The learned Rent Controller, Ambala after hearing both sides and perusing the evidence on record, allowed the ejectment petition vide order dated 22.7.2009. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner/tenant filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala vide order dated 22.8.2009, however, the ground of non-payment of rent @ Rs.2500/- was held to be not sustainable as the tenant/petitioner had paid upto date rent @ 2500/- during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Court ordered ejectment of the petitioner/tenant on the ground of personal necessity of the landlady. Hence the present revision petition. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant that impugned orders passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside as the same are contrary to the evidence brought on record. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/landlady submits that there is no illegality/irregularity in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned orders/evidence read out during the course of arguments in the present revision petition, in my opinion the respondent/landlady has miserably failed to prove bona fide necessity for personal use and occupation of the demised premises and as such the present revision petition deserves to be allowed. 8. During her cross examination it was admitted by the respondent/landlady that for the last 30 years she was residing in another residential house consisting of four rooms situated at Punjabi Mohalla alongwith her son Naresh Guglani. It was further admitted by her that she being aged was not keeping good health and was unable to walk. 8. During her cross examination it was admitted by the respondent/landlady that for the last 30 years she was residing in another residential house consisting of four rooms situated at Punjabi Mohalla alongwith her son Naresh Guglani. It was further admitted by her that she being aged was not keeping good health and was unable to walk. Further, Naresh Guglani, son of the respondent/landlady while appearing as PW3 in his cross examination admitted that his mother aged 77-78 years was very old and week and hence residing with him. It was further admitted by him that they were residing in Panjabi Mohalla house for last 45 years. 9. At the time of arguments before me, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant that the respondent landlady has since expired and since the ejectment petition has been allowed by the Appellate Authority on the ground of personal necessity, the said ground no longer exists and for this reason as well the present revision petition deserves acceptance. 10. This stand taken by the leaned counsel for the petitioner/tenant has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlady (since deceased). 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my considered opinion, the present revision petition deserves to be allowed. It has come in the evidence that the respondent/landlady, who was aged 77-78 years was residing with her son Naresh Guglani at Punjabi Mohalla for the last 30-45 years as admitted by them during their cross examination. It has also come in evidence that she being aged was unable to walk and thus totally dependent upon her son Naresh Guglani. It is also not disputed that during the interregnum the respondent/landlady has expired and thus the ground of bona fide necessity has become extinct. 12. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Seshambai(dead) through L.Rs. v. M/s Chelur Corporation Chelur Building and others, 2010 (1) Rent LR 211, has held that on the death of the petitioners in the original eviction petition, their right to seek eviction on the ground of personal requirement for the demised premises became extinct and no order could on the basis of any such requirement be passed at that point of time. Further, in Mohd.Ismail v. Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar, [2009(6) Law Herald (SC) 3569] : 2009(2) RCR 481, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that subsequent events which may come up during pendency of the proceedings be taken into consideration while deciding the eviction petition. 13. For the reasons stated above, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned ejectment orders passed by the learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, Ambala are set aside.