Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 794 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh v. Som Nath

2012-06-01

L.N.MITTAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - CM No.14708-CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.14709-CII of 2012 The application is allowed and Annexures P-1 to P-3 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. CIVIL REVISION No.3420 of 2012 Tenant-Mohinder Singh having lost before both the Authorities below has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, the Act). 2. Respondent-landlord-Som Nath filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act against the tenant-petitioner seeking his eviction from demised property i.e. Tabela No.73/8. Ejectment was sought on ground of non-payment of rent and bonafide necessity. However, ground of nonpayment of rent was not pressed. As regards bonafide necessity, it was pleaded that landlord requires the demised property for his own use and occupation as residence. The landlord has two sons and two daughters, besides wife. One son of the landlord is married and also having two issues. One daughter of the landlord is also divorcee whereas other daughter is unmarried. The landlord is living in a single room along with kitchen, bathroom and dhara -used as store. The accommodation with the landlord was thus claimed to be insufficient. 3. The tenant even denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Arrears of rent as claimed were tendered. Ground of personal necessity was also controverted. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Learned Rent Controller, Amritsar vide order dated 31.01.2008 ordered ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the demised property on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord. Appeal against the said order preferred by the tenant has been dismissed by learned Appellate Authority (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar vide order dated 19.04.2012. Feeling aggrieved, tenant has filed this revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the landlord had let out two other shops in the same building vide rent notes dated 01.09.2000 in favour of Rajesh Batra and rent note dated 17.05.2005 in favour of Mohinder Singh during pendency of the ejectment petition. The tenant during pendency of his appeal moved application Annexure P-1 for additional evidence for production of the said rent notes. The tenant during pendency of his appeal moved application Annexure P-1 for additional evidence for production of the said rent notes. It was also submitted that the tenant also moved application Annexure P-2 before the Appellate Authority for additional evidence to depict that sister of the landlord had sold 1/7th share in the demised property to the tenant himself vide sale deed dated 06.05.2008. The tenant also moved third application Annexure P-3 for additional evidence before the Appellate Authority to depict that the landlord himself has sold another shop vide sale deed dated 16.09.2011 to one Joginder Kaur. But all these applications were dismissed by the Appellate Authority. It was contended that the aforesaid additional evidence depicted that landlord had other shops in the same building and, therefore, did not require the demised shop for his own use and occupation. 7. Counsel for the landlord-respondent contended that the landlord is residing in the room which is on first floor of the demised property in occupation of the tenant-petitioner and, therefore, only the demised property is suitable for residence of the landlord along with the existing accommodation in his possession whereas the shops let out to Rajesh Batra and Mohinder Singh mentioned in application Annexure P-1 are situated at distance of 20 yards from the demised property and the property already in possession of the landlord and are, therefore, not suitable as additional accommodation for residence of the plaintiff-landlord. As regards sale of shop by landlord’s sister, it was submitted that the said sale deed has been executed without any right. As regards sale deed by the landlord himself, it was submitted that the said shop, located away from the demised property, was already under tenancy of Mohinder Singh husband of the vendee. 8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. As regards rent notes mentioned in application Annexure P-1, the same should have been produced before the Rent controller because the ejectment petition was decided on 31.01.2008. The tenant-petitioner, who is occupying the demised property in the same building, could not have been unaware of occupants of different shops in the same building. It has not been mentioned in the application Annexure P1 as to how he suddenly came to know about the said rent notes during pendency of the appeal and was not aware of the same during pendency of the ejectment petition. 9. It has not been mentioned in the application Annexure P1 as to how he suddenly came to know about the said rent notes during pendency of the appeal and was not aware of the same during pendency of the ejectment petition. 9. Even otherwise, taking into consideration averments made in application Annexure P-1 at face value, the same do not affect the case of the landlord. As rightly pointed out by counsel for the landlord, the shops referred to in application Annexure P-1 are not contiguous with the property in occupation of the landlord being used by him as residence. The said shops, which are situated at some distance from the residence of the landlord, cannot be used as additional accommodation for his residence. On the other hand, the demised property is on the ground floor below the room already in occupation of the landlord as residence on first floor. Consequently the demised property can only be used as additional accommodation for residence of the landlord. For the same reason, the shop referred to in application Annexure P-3 cannot be used by the landlord as additional accommodation for his residence. Moreover, the said shop was not vacant but was under tenancy of husband of the vendee and, therefore, even if the landlord had not sold the same, he could not have used it for his residence. 10. As regards sale deed mentioned in application Annexure P-2, the same has not been executed by the landlord. The same has rather been executed by his sister allegedly without any right. On the contrary, the landlord has been rightly found to be landlord qua the demised property. It may also be added that application of tenant for amendment of the written statement based on the said sale deed had already been dismissed by the Appellate Authority and upheld by this Court in revision petition. For this reason, application Annexure P-2 could not have been accepted. 11. From the aforesaid, it is clear that applications Annexures P-1 to P-3 have been rightly dismissed by the Appellate Authority. However, even if the same are taken into consideration, the same do not adversely affect the case of the landlord. 12. For this reason, application Annexure P-2 could not have been accepted. 11. From the aforesaid, it is clear that applications Annexures P-1 to P-3 have been rightly dismissed by the Appellate Authority. However, even if the same are taken into consideration, the same do not adversely affect the case of the landlord. 12. As regards requirement of the demised property by the landlord, keeping in view the number of members of his family and the accommodation already in his possession as noticed hereinbefore, I don’t think even the tenant can argue that the landlord does not require additional accommodation. The landlord has only a room being used as residence in addition to kitchen and bathroom. Besides the landlord and his wife, they have two sons and two daughters (third daughter being married) and one of the sons is also married having two issues. Thus there are 9 members in the family of the landlord including himself and, therefore, one room accommodation is grossly insufficient for the residence of the landlord. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, concurrent finding recorded by the Authorities below regarding bonafide personal necessity of the demised property by the landlord for his use and occupation, is fully justified and does not suffer from any infirmity, perversity, illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, meritless and is accordingly dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------