Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1354 (PNJ)

Gulshan Kumar Jain v. Neena Jauhar

2012-10-01

JASWANT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.: - Petitioner(tenant) has filed the present revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949(hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby order dated 24.08.2012(P-1) has been challenged. Through the said order, learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh has decided two applications filed by the petitioner(tenant) Gulshan Kumar. First application was Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and the second one was for appointment of Local Commissioner for inspection of the demised premises. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh had allowed the eviction petition filed by respondent Neena Johar on the ground of personal necessity vide its order dated 01.02.2012 from second floor of SCO No.11, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh. Thereafter, the present petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh and in the said appeal, the present two applications were filed. 3. In the application for additional evidence, petitioner(tenant) stated that SCO No.282, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh was in occupation of old tenants against whom respondents(landlords) filed ejectment petitions on the ground of personal necessity. In the said petitions, compromise was effected between the landlords and tenants of SCO No.282, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh and the two tenants of the said SCO were paid an amount of Rs.1 lac each and thereafter the ejectment petition was withdrawn on the statement of the tenants that the possession of the SCO NO.282 has been handed over. Similarly, another petition was filed by respondent no.3 namely Ishwinder Singh Johar against Patiala Homeo Pharmacy on the ground of personal necessity and in the said proceedings also Ishwinder Singh had paid Rs. 1 lac and possession was taken by him after compromise. After obtaining the possession of the entire ground floor of SCO No.282, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh, the landlords have put up a sign board of To-Let for letting out the portion of the building on rent. The petitioner herein alleged that he has taken the photographs of this To-Let board on 17.03.2012 and some other photographs before putting up of the To-Let board i.e. on 06.03.2012. A CD was also prepared and since all these facts have been withheld from the learned Rent Controller, therefore, this evidence is important because the area which has been got vacated by the landlords is nearly 3000 sq.ft on ground floor, whereas the petitioner (tenant) is in occupation of 600 sq.ft. 4. A CD was also prepared and since all these facts have been withheld from the learned Rent Controller, therefore, this evidence is important because the area which has been got vacated by the landlords is nearly 3000 sq.ft on ground floor, whereas the petitioner (tenant) is in occupation of 600 sq.ft. 4. The second application was filed by the petitioner(tenant) for appointment of Local Commissioner on the ground that application for additional evidence has been filed and it was alleged in this application that Local Commissioner be appointed to visit the site i.e. basement , ground floor and first floor of SCO No.282, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh and record the factual position. 5. The respondents(landlords) filed replies to both the aforesaid applications and it was inter alia stated in the replies that the present ejectment petition has been filed for the personal requirement of one of coowners namely Munish Johar-respondent no.2 herein, who is already doing his business of developing software under the name and style of M/s Grey Cell Technoligies Exports, having its office on the remaining porition of the second floor of the demised premises. The contents of the application regarding filing the petition seeking ejectment from SCO No.282, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh was admitted but it was stated that the said building is not suitable for the requirement of Munish Johar-respondent no.2 who is already doing his business in a portion which is adjacent to the portion in dispute. The application for local commissioner was also opposed by the respondents and it was stated that respondent no.3-Ishwinder Singh Johar has renovated the portion of SCO No.282, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh for the purpose of running his business of photography. Thus, prayer for dismissal of both the applications was made. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dismissed both the aforesaid applications vide impugned order dated 24.08.2012(P-1). Hence the present revision petition. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance. 8. Thus, prayer for dismissal of both the applications was made. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dismissed both the aforesaid applications vide impugned order dated 24.08.2012(P-1). Hence the present revision petition. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) has vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Authority has committed grave error by declining both the applications as these applications were of utmost importance, being subsequent events and the said facts would have completely demolished the case of the landlords, since the ground of personal necessity stood falsified from the various ejectment petition filed for eviction of tenants from SCO No.282, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh. It was further argued that the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh has further failed to appreciate that both the properties i.e. SCO No.11, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh(demised premises) and SCO No.282, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh are owned and possessed by all the three respondents(landlords) jointly, having undivided share therein and, therefore, if the SCO No.282, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh has been got vacated then the bona fide necessity as projected by the respondents stand demolished. 9. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is not in dispute that in the present case, the necessity of Munish Johar-respondent no.2 has been projected for eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises. It is further not in dispute that Munish Johar has been doing his business under the name and style of M/s Grey Cell Technoligies Exports from the remaining portion of the second floor of SCO No.11, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh. It has come on record that respondent no.3 Ishwinder Singh Johar had filed eviction petition against M/s Godson Overseas Consultants from SCO No.282, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh, on the ground of personal necessity and he had also filed another eviction petition against Patiala Homeo Pharmacy from the remaining portion of SCO No.282, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh and in the said petitions, compromise was effected after Ishwinder Singh had paid Rs.1 lac to the tenants and vacant possession was handed over to the landlords. It is evident from the record that Ishwinder Singh Johar had projected his personal necessity in the above mentioned two eviction petitions and Munish Johar’s necessity was not pleaded in the said petitions. Even though all the three respondents might be co-sharers in the property, still it does not preclude one of the co-sharer to file a petition for eviction on the ground of personal necessity for himself. Thus, it is evident from record that Ishwinder Singh had got SCO No.282, Sector 32- D, Chandigarh vacated for his own use and occupation so as to start his own business. 10. As far as the appointment of Local Commissioner for this SCO is concerned, so as to verify the actual position existing in the said SCO No.282, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh, it shall be of no use at all because firstly, local commissioner cannot be appointed for procuring the evidence for the parties and secondly the local commissioner cannot verify the fact as to whether the premises is about to be let out to some tenants especially when it is admitted position that the board of To-Let is nowhere in the property at present. 11. It is evident from the above mentioned facts that Munish Johar has projected his necessity for the demised premises and Ishwinder Singh Johar had projected his necessity for SCO No.282, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh, therefore, the ground of personal necessity, in the opinion of this Court would still remain for Munish Johar as no necessity of Munish Johar was projected in the eviction petitions filed for ejectment of tenants from SCO No.282, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh. Moreover, since Munish Johar is already in occupation of the adjoining portion of the demised premises and, therefore, appeals to the mind of a prudent man that he wants to get the same vacated to extend his business in the entire floor. 12. In view of the above, in the opinion of this Court both the applications are of no consequence as the same do not effect the case of the respondents(landlords) and the same cannot held to further the case of the petitioner(tenant) in any manner whatsoever. However, it is made clear that any observations made hereinabove shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 13. Dismissed.