Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1649 (PNJ)

Hardeep Singh v. Manjit Kaur

2012-11-23

Jaswant Singh

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.:- Petitioners(tenant nos.2 to 5) have filed the present revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the concurrent findings returned by both the courts below, whereby the petition for ejectment filed by the respondent(landlady) Manjit Kaur on the ground of personal necessity and nuisance was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Taran Taran vide its order dated 08.2.2012 and the findings thereof only regarding personal necessity were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Taran Taran vide judgment dated 11.09.2012. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondent(landlady) Manjit Kaur filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioners(tenant nos.2 to 5) from the shop in question on the ground that the petitioners are guilty of such acts and conducts which results in nuisance to the occupiers of the building in the neighbourhood as the petitioners(tenants) have started work of denting the scooters along with electric welding in the demised premises, which is causing nuisance to the occupants of the building in the neighbourhood. It was further averred that the premises in question is required by her for her own use and occupation as her major sons Avtar Singh and Kulwinder Singh required the same as they are unemployed and jobless and the premises would be required for carrying on the business by her and said two sons in the demised shops as they intend to start the business of sale of car and scooter spare parts. 3. Upon notice, entire averments of the petition were denied and it was stated that no nuisance is caused by them as they do not indulge in hammering scooters at all. The personal necessity of the sons as well as Manjit Kaur/landlady was denied and prayer was made for dismissal of the petition. 4. Rejoinder was filed, wherein the entire contents of the petition were reiterated and that of the written statement were denied. 5. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides led their evidence in support of their respective claims and after appreciating their evidence learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on grounds of nuisance as well as personal necessity and the findings of the learned Rent Controller were affirmed qua the ground of personal necessity only by Appellate Authority, Taran Taran. Hence the present revision petition. 6. Both sides led their evidence in support of their respective claims and after appreciating their evidence learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on grounds of nuisance as well as personal necessity and the findings of the learned Rent Controller were affirmed qua the ground of personal necessity only by Appellate Authority, Taran Taran. Hence the present revision petition. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenant nos.2 to 5) and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenant nos.2 to 5) has argued that the learned Appellate Authority has wrongly allowed the petition of the respondent(landlady) on the ground of personal necessity although there is no proof on record to show that the bona fide requirement as projected by the respondent(landlady) is actually there. It has been argued that the respondent(landlady) has not been able to prove that there is an imminent threat to the son of the respondent(landlady) from his landlord to eject the premises which is in occupation of the said son. 8. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. By now it is settled position of law that a tenant cannot be allowed to dictate terms to the landlord as to his or her requirements regarding the property that is required for bona fide use and occupation. It is not in dispute that one of the son of the respondent (landlady) died during the pendency of the proceedings, however, it is also not in dispute that the other son of the respondent(landlady) is still unemployed. Although a business is being carried out but said business is handled by the husband of the respondent(landlady). The said fact has been clearly admitted by tenant-Hardeep Singh who is petitioner no.1 before this Court during his cross examination when he categorically admitted the fact that P.S. Motor Workshop is being run by Pritam Singh, who is husband of applicant-landlady and thus, the argument that the son of respondent(landlady) is working along with his father in the premises is completely negated. This Court is of the opinion that it is the landlady’s prerogative to do what she deems appropriate for the betterment of her family and nobody can be allowed to interfere in her endeavor for starting of said business. Every person intends to rise in his life and have a better living and if for the said fact, a person intends to start business by settling her son this court does not seem any harm in same. 9. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.5000/-. --------0.B.S.0------------ —————————