Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1149 (PNJ)

Raj Rani v. Naresh Mehta

2013-08-26

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2013
JUDGMENT RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 01.03.2011 of the Rent Controller, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby her eviction has been ordered from the demised premises on the ground that the respondent landlord needs the same for his personal bonafide need and further challenging the judgment dated 07.11.2012 of the Appellate Authority, Yamuna Nagar dismissing her appeal against the aforesaid order of her eviction. Suffice it to say that eviction of the petitioner has been ordered from the demised premises on the ground that the same is required by the respondent landlord for his bonafide use and occupation. While setting up his need for bonafide use and occupation of the demised premises, the respondent landlord has averred that the property in question is required by him for his personal use as he is not having any other house either as a tenant or as an owner in possession within the municipal limits of Yamuna Nagar and at present he is residing with his father as a licencee at Mehta Niwas. He further stated that his father is pressurizing him to get the house vacated as his family has grown up and that he had purchased the house in question for his personal use and occupation and he is in dire need of the same. The ground of personal necessity of the respondent landlord was opposed by the petitioner tenant submitting that the respondent landlord was in possession of sufficient accommodation/ portion of the residential house of his father who is living with him and is an aged person and as such dependent upon his son. The petitioner further submitted that the building where the respondent landlord resides with his father consists of three rooms and there is sufficient accommodation available in that building; whereas there are only two rooms in the property in question and out of these rooms, one room is already in possession of the respondent landlord. To prove the aforesaid ground of eviction, respondent landlord got examined himself as PW1 and deposed that his family consists of his two grownup children and wife, and at present he is residing at the house of his father wherein besides the family of the respondent landlord, his father and the family of his brother also reside. The said house owned by his father is 90 square yards. The said house owned by his father is 90 square yards. He further deposed that in the house in question, one room is with the petitioner tenant and one room is with him, and it was not possible for him to put up his family in one room, and thus, the room under occupation of the petitioner is required by him for his family. His version has been corroborated by PW2 Mangat Ram, PW3 Vikas Mehta and PW4 Ashok Bali. On the other hand, petitioner tenant appeared as RW1. In her cross-examination, she admitted that at present the respondent landlord is putting up in the house of his father where his brother also resides with his family. She further admitted that both the respondent landlord and his brother are living there with their respective families and they also have children who are college going. She further admitted that the house in question is of 49 square yards. In view of the facts, as noticed above, the Rent Controller found that the landlord has proved his need and requirement for the demised premises for his own occupation and there was nothing on record to suggest that his need was not bonafide. The concluding part of the order of Rent Controller reads thus: “After going through the evidence of the parties and the documents placed on record and the authorities relied upon by both the parties this Court is of the view that it is for the landlord to decide as to the requirement on the ground of personal necessity and to choose the location and the tenant cannot dictate his terms to the landlord in selecting a particular location while discarding the other for his residence. This Court is of the view that the house in question is required by the petitioner for his family and the tenant in no way can dictate his terms to the landlord and challenge the bonafide of the petitioner on the ground that the house in question is not required by the petitioner without establishing the malafide on the part of the petitioner and by simply raising this plea that the petitioner is residing with his father who is an aged person and petitioner is required by him to look after him. In these circumstances, the present issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.” Aggrieved from the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 07.11.2010. While upholding the findings of the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority observed as under: “14. From the evaluation of the evidence discussed above, it is established that the house of father of the petitioner where he is presently residing is not sufficient for him and his family as it is established that the house owned by father of the petitioner is only in the area of 90 Sq. yards in which besides father of the petitioner landlord the family of the brother of the petitioner is also residing who is also having two children and his wife and in the time to come the children will grow up and this will certain need separate rooms for their study etc. Moreover, RW1 Raj Rani when appeared in the witness box has admitted in her cross examination that at present the petitioner is putting up in the house of his father where his brother is also residing. She further admitted that both the petitioner and his brother are living there with their respective families and they have college going children. RW2 Smt. Anu also deposed in her cross examination that she does not know the length and breadth of the house in which Naresh is residing with his father. Besides father of Naresh Mehta is residing with his wife and children. Wife and children of his brother are also residing in that house. Naresh Mehta has two children who are college going. His brother has also two children who are also school/college going. Besides father of Naresh Mehta is residing with his wife and children. Wife and children of his brother are also residing in that house. Naresh Mehta has two children who are college going. His brother has also two children who are also school/college going. In this way, from the admission of RW1 respondent tenant and RW2 it is clearly established that both the brothers i.e. petitioner landlord as well as his brother are having two children each who are residing in the house of their father and all the children are school/college going, therefore, the need of the petitioner cannot be held to be in any way fanciful rather the petitioner has bonafide personal necessity of the tenanted premises as the family of the petitioner is likely to be grown up in the time to come and the accommodation where he is residing presently cannot be held to be sufficient to meet his genuine need. 15. Moreover, the respondent landlord (sic.) has no right to dictate her terms on the landlord as to how and in what manner he should adjust his family in the house of his father when his need has been proved to be genuine one. In Rani Devi and others case (supra) our own Hon’ble High Court has held that even if alternative accommodation was available, it is for the landlord to decide as to how and in what manner he should fulfill his requirement. The tenant cannot dictate terms to his landlord as to how the latter should adjust his family. In Chander Mukhi Sharma’s case (supra) our own Hon’ble High Court has held that when a landlord is living in the house of his father and purchasing a house which was occupied by tenant then landlord is entitled to evict tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement. It is further held that a son cannot stay in the house of his father as of a right and the son is entitled to evict tenant from a house and shift there. In Dr.Satpal Behl’s case (supra) relied by the respondent our own Hon’ble High Court has held that a landlord has every right to be comfortable in the property which he or she has purchased with open eyes. The landlord spends huge amount of money on buying some property which obviously is purchased by getting his needs in mind. In Dr.Satpal Behl’s case (supra) relied by the respondent our own Hon’ble High Court has held that a landlord has every right to be comfortable in the property which he or she has purchased with open eyes. The landlord spends huge amount of money on buying some property which obviously is purchased by getting his needs in mind. He, therefore, has every right to utilize the property fruitfully and live comfortably and he cannot be compelled to sacrifice his comforts for the need of the tenant.” Still not satisfied, the petitioner tenant has filed the instant revision petition challenging the aforesaid orders of the authorities below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the bonafide need of the respondent landlord is not proved, as from the facts on record it is clearly established that the eviction petition has been filed by the respondent landlord malafidely as he has purchased the property in dispute only on 23.01.2009 and filed the instant eviction petition just two months thereafter and this fact itself suggests that the need of the respondent landlord is not bonafide, as no one will purchase the property wherein a tenant is sitting and thus, there is no bonafide need of the respondent landlord in the instant case and it is only a wish of the respondent to get the property vacated under the garb of his personal need. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent landlord has vehemently argued that both the authorities below, after appreciation of evidence, have recorded a concurrent finding that the respondent landlord is in need of the demised premises for his bonafide need and occupation, and there is no material evidence on record to contradict the same; and thus, this Court should not interfere in the concurrent findings so recorded. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders of both the authorities below. The facts, as noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, could not be disputed by the counsel representing the petitioner tenant. Admittedly, the respondent landlord is not having any other accommodation except the house of his father where he is living as a licencee. Admittedly, the respondent landlord is having two grownup children and it is for him to accommodate/adjust the needs of his family. Admittedly, the respondent landlord is not having any other accommodation except the house of his father where he is living as a licencee. Admittedly, the respondent landlord is having two grownup children and it is for him to accommodate/adjust the needs of his family. It is well settled that requirement of the landlord has to be examined keeping in view his needs. Thus, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner tenant that the respondent landlord is having sufficient accommodation, is liable to be rejected. In view thereof, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed.