Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 750 (PNJ)

Ram Dass v. Surinder Kumar Gupta

2012-05-28

L.N.MITTAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - CM No.14140-CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. CR No.3284 of 2012 Tenant Ram Dass has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, the Act) to assail order dated 19.03.2010 passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana and judgment dated 10.03.2012 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana. 2. Respondent-landlord Surinder Kumar Gupta filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act against the tenant-petitioner alleging that the demised property (on first floor) was let out to petitioner’s father Dina Nath on 01.01.1986. After death of Dina Nath, petitioner herein is the tenant. Ejectment was sought on various grounds including the ground of personal necessity which only is relevant for the purpose of this revision petition. The landlord alleged that he has retired from service of Bank and wants to start his banking consultancy in the demised property and his son Himanshu Gupta is Chartered Accountant. He also needs the demised property for carrying on his profession as Chartered Accountant. 3. The tenant-petitioner resisted the ejectment petition and controverted the grounds of ejectment pleaded by the landlord. 4. Learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana vide order dated 19.03.2010 allowed the ejectment petition on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord for himself as well as for his son. Appeal against the said order preferred by tenant has been dismissed by learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 10.03.2012. Feeling aggrieved, tenant has filed this revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the tenant was being represented by Mr. Rajiv Duggal, Advocate before Rent Controller but Mr. Duggal died in an accident and thereafter presence of his junior/associate Mr. Rajinder Singh, Advocate was marked by the Rent Controller although Mr. Rajinder Singh, Advocate did not appear to argue the case on behalf of the tenant before the Rent Controller and on this very ground, delay in filing the appeal was condoned and thus no opportunity of arguing the case was afforded by the Rent Controller to the tenant. 7. Rajinder Singh, Advocate was marked by the Rent Controller although Mr. Rajinder Singh, Advocate did not appear to argue the case on behalf of the tenant before the Rent Controller and on this very ground, delay in filing the appeal was condoned and thus no opportunity of arguing the case was afforded by the Rent Controller to the tenant. 7. It was also contended that the landlord has other properties as detailed in the amended written statement Annexure P-2 filed by the tenant before the Rent Controller, but the landlord did not disclose this fact in the ejectment petition and therefore, ejectment cannot be ordered on the ground of necessity. It was also pointed out that landlord’s son Himanshu Gupta while appearing as witness, admitted that he was carrying on his profession from his residential premises and, therefore, demised property is not required by the landlord. Reliance in support of these contentions has been placed on judgment of this Court in case of Shankar Lal versus Madan Lal & others, 2011(1) RCR (Rent 139) and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ajit Singh & another versus Jit Ram & another, [2008(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2874 (SC)] : 2008(4) RCR (Civil), 390. 8. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but the same cannot be accepted. 9. Presence of Mr. Rajinder Singh, Advocate on behalf of tenant has been recorded in impugned order by the Rent Controller and even arguments raised by him have been mentioned in the said order. Consequently it cannot be said that Mr. Rajinder Singh, Advocate did not address arguments on behalf of the tenant before the Rent Controller. Observation in this regard in order Annexure P-4 whereby delay was condoned in filing appeal before the Appellate Authority cannot be accepted to hold that Mr. Rajinder Singh, Advocate did not address arguments before the Rent Controller. For condoning delay, the Courts are liberal. Merely because delay was condoned in filing the appeal, it cannot be said that Mr. Rajinder Singh, Advocate had not addressed arguments before the Rent Controller. In this context, it is significant to notice that not only presence of Mr. Rajinder Singh, Advocate has been recorded by the Rent Controller but also the arguments raised by him have been noticed and discussed by the Rent Controller. 10. As regards necessity of the landlord, the same is fully established. In this context, it is significant to notice that not only presence of Mr. Rajinder Singh, Advocate has been recorded by the Rent Controller but also the arguments raised by him have been noticed and discussed by the Rent Controller. 10. As regards necessity of the landlord, the same is fully established. Landlord has retired from service in Bank and wants to start his own banking consultancy. His son is also a Chartered Accountant and needs the demised property for his profession. Thus bonafide necessity of the landlord is fully proved. Even the tenant while appearing in the witness box admitted that the landlord has no other premises for his aforesaid necessity. It is undisputed that the landlord has retired from Bank and his son is Chartered Accountant. 11. The contention that the landlord concealed his other property, cannot be accepted because it is mentioned in head note of the ejectment petition Annexure P-1 itself that the demised property is on first floor of shops marked as No.7 and 8. Admittedly the said shops are under tenancy of other tenants. Consequently it cannot be said that the landlord has any other property in his possession and has concealed the same. The said shops are not in possession of the landlord. All necessary ingredients of the ground of necessity have been duly pleaded in ejectment petition Annexure P-1. The landlord himself has appeared in the witness box and his son has also appeared as witness. Consequently judgments in the cases of Shankar Lal (supra) and Ajit Singh (supra) have no applicability to the instant case. 12. The landlord cannot be forced to ask his son to carry on his profession as Chartered Accountant from the residential premises when the landlord has the demised property to carry on the same. Landlord is the best judge of his needs. The tenant cannot dictate to the landlord that his son should carry on his practice as Chartered Accountant from the residential premises only. The same would obviously cause inconvenience to landlord and other family members. 13. From the material on record, it becomes manifest that bonafide requirement of the landlord for the demised property is fully established. Concurrent finding recorded by both the Authorities below in this regard is fully justified by the evidence on record and by almost admitted facts. The same would obviously cause inconvenience to landlord and other family members. 13. From the material on record, it becomes manifest that bonafide requirement of the landlord for the demised property is fully established. Concurrent finding recorded by both the Authorities below in this regard is fully justified by the evidence on record and by almost admitted facts. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. There is no perversity, illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in impugned orders of the Authorities below so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------