Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1859 (PNJ)

Parveen Sahai v. Salim Ahmed

2012-12-18

JASWANT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.:- CM No.31349-CII of 2012 has been filed under Section 151 CPC by petitioner(tenant) seeking permission to place on record the rejoinder by way of affidavit along with photograph(Annexure A-5)to the reply filed by the respondent(landlord) in order to clarify the facts. In view of the contents of the application, duly supported by affidavit of one of the LR of petitioner(tenant), the CM is allowed and rejoinder by way of affidavit to the reply filed by the respondent(landlord) is taken on record. CR No.8117 of 2011 Lrs of Surjit Kumar Sahai, petitioner(tenant) are in revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the concurrent findings returned by both the courts below, whereby petition filed by respondent(landlord) Salim Ahmed for eviction of tenant Surjit Kumar Sahai from demised premises i.e. ground floor of House No.1891, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, on the ground of bona fide requirement was allowed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide order dated 15.09.2009 and the findings thereof were affirmed by learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide its judgment dated 03.12.2011. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that respondent(landlord) Salim Ahmed sought ejectment of the tenant Surjit Kumar Sahai(since deceased) on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent as well as on the ground of bona fide requirement of himself as well as his sons. It was mentioned that the family of petitioner comprises of his wife, one married son and one unmarried son. The premises in which they are residing is small for their accommodation and the demised premises is required so that the entire family can accommodate properly as the sons are now old and the premises which they are occupying is not sufficient to accommodate the increasing family of the respondent(landlord). 3. Upon notice, entire averments made by the respondent (landlord) in his petition were denied and it was stated that the respondent (landlord) is already in occupation of sufficient rooms on the first and second floor of the house in question and thus, need as projected in the petition is not bona fide. Petitioner(tenant) also filed a counter claim for refund of amount which he has paid in excess of the rent payable to the petitioner for the period from 1.6.1992 to 31.7.1994 along with interest. 4. Petitioner(tenant) also filed a counter claim for refund of amount which he has paid in excess of the rent payable to the petitioner for the period from 1.6.1992 to 31.7.1994 along with interest. 4. Rejoinder was filed, wherein the all the averments were denied and those of the petition were reiterated. 5. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides lead their evidence in support of their respective claims and after appreciating their evidence the ejectment application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground of bona fide requirement and the findings thereof were affirmed by learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. Hence the present revision. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully with their able assistance. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) has argued that when respondent(landlord) had purchased house in dispute, ground floor and first floor were already occupied by tenants. The landlord occupied the second floor and had filed two petitions for eviction against the tenants on the ground floor and first floor on the ground of bona fide necessity. The petition filed with regard to first floor was allowed keeping in view the bona fide necessity of the landlord. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) that in the meantime both the sons of the landlord had shifted, as one had gone to Australia and another to Panchkula. Thus, it has been submitted that the necessity of the landlord is over in as much as there are only two persons left in the house i.e. respondent(landlord) and his wife for whom first and second floors are sufficient in accommodation. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent(landlord) has argued that both the courts below have rightly held that the need of the respondent(landlord) is genuine and no interference is warranted against the findings returned by both the courts below. 9. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book carefully with their able assistance, this Court is of the considered view that present petition is devoid of any merit and same deserves to be dismissed. It is not in dispute that at present both the sons of the respondent(landlord) are married and have their own children. 9. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book carefully with their able assistance, this Court is of the considered view that present petition is devoid of any merit and same deserves to be dismissed. It is not in dispute that at present both the sons of the respondent(landlord) are married and have their own children. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that one of the son has left for abroad does not mean that he cannot come back to India and live with respondent(landlord). It is possible that they may be visiting India of and on. 10. It is also a matter of record that second son, namely Vasim Ahmed has two children and has now shifted to house no.364-A, Sector 21, Panchkula. It is however, not in dispute that Vasim Ahmed had taken the house on rent at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per month and it has also come on record before the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh that Vasim Ahmed has temporarily shifted to Panchkula as the accommodation in the house in question is not sufficient for his family. It is also evident from the record that wife of the respondent(landlord) had suffered with an accident, whereby she has 17% disability in relation to her whole body. Disability certificate has been proved on record as Ex.P-14 to this effect. It is further evident from the record that the doctor has advised the wife of the respondent(landlord) not to climb stairs due to the disability as mentioned above. Thus, this fact also tilts the equities as well as necessity in favour of the respondent(landlord), who admittedly is old and his wife, who is suffering from disability cannot be forced to live on the first or the second floor and they are entitled to enjoy their property in the best possible manner they feel appropriate. 11. Now coming to the argument that accommodation with respondent(landlord) is on first and second floor are sufficient, this Court is of the opinion that the same also does not dent the case of the respondent (landlord). The petition has been filed for the bona fide personal necessity of respondent (landlord) as well as his family members. As stated above, younger son of the respondent (landlord) has been forced to shift to Panchkula in a rented accommodation as the accommodation is not sufficient for his family. The petition has been filed for the bona fide personal necessity of respondent (landlord) as well as his family members. As stated above, younger son of the respondent (landlord) has been forced to shift to Panchkula in a rented accommodation as the accommodation is not sufficient for his family. Each and every person is entitled to a luxurious accommodation to the best of their affordability and when respondent (landlord) feels that his son as well as his family requires the premises, the bona fide cannot be challenged, when the house in question is only a five marla house and the respondent(landlord) as well as his wife are now aged persons. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners (tenants) has filed a CM No.25030-CII of 2012, whereby he intends to bring on record by way of additional evidence, two enlarged prints of photographs Annexures P-3 & P-4 so as to show that subsequently a beauty parlour in the name and style of Salim Hair & Beauty Studio has been started by respondent(landlord) on first floor of demised premises. 13. In reply to the said aforesaid miscellaneous application, CM No.29275-CII of 2012 was filed by the respondent (landlord), whereby it was stated that no such saloon is being run by the respondent(landlord). Rather, a saloon under the name and style of Salim Hair and Beauty Studio is being run by his son on a rental accommodation in Panchkula at SCO No.27, Sector 11. It was further mentioned that the petitioners(tenants) has clicked the photographs of the waste flex banner of the said saloon, which was being used to cover the window air conditioner installed at the residence of the respondent(landlord) on the first floor. To support his plea respondent(landlord) has relied upon photographs Annexure R-1. 14. Thereafter, a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners(tenants) vide CM No.31349-CII of 2012, whereby photograph(Annexure A-5) has been placed on record by them. In the said application/rejoinder it was stated that the fact that have been mentioned in the reply by the respondent (landlord) are concocted one and it was stated that a Saloon is still being run by the respondent(landlord) at the first floor premises of the disputed house. Through Annexure A-5, petitioners(tenants) has tried to clarify that there is material difference in the advertisement that is there in Panchkula premises and that of the present premises. 15. Through Annexure A-5, petitioners(tenants) has tried to clarify that there is material difference in the advertisement that is there in Panchkula premises and that of the present premises. 15. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties on CM No.25030- CII of 2012, this Court is of the opinion that same is absolutely frivolous and deserves to be dismissed. A perusal of the photographs Annexures A-3 & A-4 that have been placed on record by the tenants would show that it is a flex cover which is covering only the AC and not more than that. A perusal of the photographs reveal that even the name of Salim Hair and Beauty Studio is not clearly visible as grill of the balcony comes in its way whereby the view is blocked. The inference that is being drawn by petitioners (tenants) is completely wrong and it is not understandable as to how it appears to be a beauty saloon. This cannot be stated to be in any given circumstance, as an advertisement board erected by the respondent (landlord). Thus, the application is completely misconceived and the same is also hereby dismissed. 16. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition same is hereby dismissed. ------------------------