Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1316 (PNJ)

Sunil Kumar v. Jagjiwan Kumar

2013-09-27

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2013
JUDGMENT RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL) This is tenant’s revision petition challenging order dated 15.01.2005 of the Rent Controller, Malerkotla, whereby he has been ordered to vacate the premises in question and further the judgment dated 4.10.2011 of the Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order of eviction. Though the respondent-landlord had sought ejectment of the petitioner on various grounds, yet it will be relevant to notice that eviction of the petitioner has been ordered only on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent-landlord. The respondent-landlord had set up his plea of bona fide necessity as under : “11) That the petitioner was serving as teacher in Punjab Education Department and has been recently retired from service on 31/12/99 and the petitioner is unemployed and wants to start business of Ready made garments in the shop in dispute. So the petitioner requires shop for his own occupation. 12) That the petitioner has not vacated any such shop nor is in possession of any such shop since the enforcement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 within the Urban Area of Malerkotla nor any where else.” The petitioner contested the ejectment petition raising various preliminary objections. However, the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. The averments made in the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner-tenant read thus : “11. That Para No.11 of the application is wrong and is strongly denied. The petitioner does not require the shop in dispute for his own occupation. The petitioner is already running an S.T.D. in the shop owned and possessed by the petitioner. Besides the petitioner has also rented out a shop adjoining his residential house to a tenant and the said shop was got vacated from the previous tenant. 12. That Para No.12 of the application is wrong and is strongly denied. A detailed reply has already been given above in this reply.” At this stage, para Nos. 11 and 12 of the amended rejoinder submitted on behalf of the landlord-respondent may also be noticed, which reads thus: 11. That para no.11 of the application is correct and reiterated. Para No.11 of the reply is wrong and denied. A detailed reply has already been given above in this reply.” At this stage, para Nos. 11 and 12 of the amended rejoinder submitted on behalf of the landlord-respondent may also be noticed, which reads thus: 11. That para no.11 of the application is correct and reiterated. Para No.11 of the reply is wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that the petitioner does not require the shop in dispute for his own occupation and it is as well wrong that the petitioner is already running STD in the shop owned and possessed by him rather it is submitted that no part of the residential house fully detailed in the site plan marked as mark ‘Z’ which is already placed on the file, is on rent or that any portion of the same is being used for any commercial activity, rather it is submitted that the premises shown in the site plan mark X which was previously part and parcel of the residential house of the petitioner and which very small room was on rent with Mohd. Shabir is now being used for the residential need of his younger married son namely Kamal and his wife namely Reema as their bed room since they were married on 28/4/2009 i.e. after the site plan marked as mark ‘Z’ was prepared and submitted in rent appeal filed by Sunil Kumar against Jagjiwan Kumar. And similarly the adjoining room on the western Northern corner of the site plan mark ‘Z’ is being used by the elder married son of the petitioner and also as Drawing Room and it is further submitted that earlier the wife of the petitioner was doing her PCO business in this room to augment the income of the family and after this business remained no more popular and profitable the same was closed. And it is further submitted here that accommodation in the residential house became totally insufficient on account of his grown up children and also on account of the subsequent events referred supra and infra which occurred during the pendency of the rent appeal. And it is further submitted here that accommodation in the residential house became totally insufficient on account of his grown up children and also on account of the subsequent events referred supra and infra which occurred during the pendency of the rent appeal. It is further submitted here that even the residential accommodation now available with the petitioner for his residence alongwith his wife is not sufficient for his family which besides them now consists of his two married sons, daughters-in-law, besides their three married daughters who often visit their parents house with their families since all the three married daughters have children, thus even the residential house of the petitioner shown and detailed in the site plan marked marked ‘Z’ is not at all sufficient for the present residential needs of all the said family members. And in this respect the entire residential accommodation shown in site plan marked as mark ‘z’ alongwith the portion of the premises shown in the site plan mark X which is part of the residential house and which is detailed in the site plan marked ‘Z’ consists of just four room besides one small store, small kitchen, small bath room/latrine and it is submitted here that out of the said accommodation one room is now being used as bed room by the landlord and his wife, two front rooms abutting the road are being occupied and used by two married sons of the petitioner separately, who were married during the pendency of the rent appeal filed by the tenant and the fourth small room adjoining the bath room/latrine is being used as guest room and the small room situated on the southern/eastern corner is being used as store room having no separate Puja Room and no separate Drawing/dining room etc. And it is further submitted here that the accommodation available with the petitioner and detailed in the site plan marked ‘Z’ is totally insufficient and is not at all suitable for the said residential needs of the landlord/petitioner and his family which includes his three married daughters and their children and the petitioner always feel roped when all his daughters visit him with their children, off and on during summer and winter vacations, And it is further submitted that : i. the demised premises got vacated from the said Mohd. Shabir on the ground of Sub letting was very very small room which is bounded and measured from inside as under: East: Wall 9’ – C/w Gurdas Ram; West: Wall 9’6” house of the petitioner; North: Road 6’3” Road; South: Wall 7’6” house of petitioner; and the measurements i.e. from inside the said room have been detailed in the site plan marked as mark ‘X’ attached with the file and the same just measured 6’3” x 9’6” and the same was not at all suitable to the petitioner for running the business of Ready Made Garments and the same is not at all suitable and sufficient for the purpose of the petitioner since the shop in dispute i.e. the demised shop which is on rent with the present tenant/respondent measures about 9’9” x 44’7” as shown in the site plan already attached and which is marked as Mark Y, thus it is as well wrong and vehemently denied that the premises got vacated from the said Mohd. Shabir and detailed in the site plan mark X is having same potentialities, and it is further submitted here that the area of the present demised premises which are in possession of the respondent is 50.7/9 square yards as detailed in the site plan marked as Mark ‘Z’ whereas the area of the room got vacated from the said Mohd. Shabir as shown and detailed in the site plan Mark ‘X’ is just 9.00 (nine square yards), thus the premises in possession of the respondent are more suitable for the need and necessity of the petitioner. ii. that the tenant cannot thrust his own choice on the landlord to start his business of Ready Made Garments in the very very small room/shop as shown in the site plan mark ‘X’ instead of disputed premises which are comparatively and suitably spacious for said business since more and more space is required for smooth running of the readymade garments business, for displaying garments in different show cases, storing of seasonal garments and providing separate try rooms for ladies and gents etc. And also on account of the fact that the room shown in site plan marked as mark ‘X’ is being used as bed room by the younger married of the petitioner as mentioned supra; iii. And also on account of the fact that the room shown in site plan marked as mark ‘X’ is being used as bed room by the younger married of the petitioner as mentioned supra; iii. that during the pendency of the rent appeal even the tenant/respondent has started doing his business in other demised premises which are just opposite to the demised premises in dispute and the same have cleverly been taken on rent in the name of his wife and as such the subsequent events which have cropped up during the pendency of the appeal are worthy to be examined, evaluated and adjudicated upon and the same are required to be tested with only one touch stone, thus looking from every angle the landlord/petitioner is in dire need of the demised shop referred and detailed supra for starting the business of ready garments in the demised shop still subsists and it is absolutely wrong that the same does not subsist now. 12. Para No.12 of the application is correct and reiterated. Respondent has wrongly denied it.” The Rent Controller after considering the evidence on record found that the bona fide requirement of the respondent-landlord, who has retired as Government teacher, stands proved. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Authority observed that the respondent-landlord has retired from the Education Department on 31.12.1999 and he required the shop in dispute for his bona fide use, as he wanted to start the business of readymade garments. He being the best judge of his needs, it was for him to see which premises are best suited for carrying on the business which he intended to start. The Appellate Authority further affirmed the findings of the trial Court holding that the area of the shop in dispute was much bigger than the area of the shop vacated by Mohammad Shabir during the pendency of the instant petition. The Appellate Authority further affirmed the findings of the trial Court holding that the area of the shop in dispute was much bigger than the area of the shop vacated by Mohammad Shabir during the pendency of the instant petition. In fact, it could not be disputed that the aforesaid shops which have been got vacated from the other tenants during the pendency of the instant petition, were originally part of the residential house of the respondent and it is the case of the respondent-landlord that after vacation of the aforesaid shops, these shops have been amalgamated into the residential house, as the respondent required more accommodation for his married sons. Still not satisfied, the petitioner-tenant has filed the instant petition, challenging the impugned judgments and decrees of the authorities below. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgments. Learned counsel for the petitioner has moved an application i.e. CM No.5165-CII of 2012 to place on record certain documents of the house tax assessment registers and a site plan, as additional evidence, to show that a wrong description of the property in dispute has been given, which goes to the root cause of the dispute. However, this Court is at loss to understand as to how the documents produced before this Court are relevant for the purpose of determination of point in issue i.e. personal bona fide need of the respondent-landlord. The documents pertaining to identity of the property are not at all relevant, as the petitioner is not disputing the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties and identity of the disputed property. It is well settled that a landlord is the best judge of his needs and a tenant cannot dictate his terms to the landlord with regard to suitability of the accommodation required by him. It is well settled that a landlord is the best judge of his needs and a tenant cannot dictate his terms to the landlord with regard to suitability of the accommodation required by him. Moreover, there is no dispute on behalf of the respondent also with regard to the other shops, alleged to have been vacated by the other tenants during the pendency of the instant petition, as according to the respondent-landlord, the same were part of residential premises and vacation of these will not make any difference, as the same are part of residential accommodation and have been amalgamated into residential premises, as per the stand of the respondent-landlord, which could not be disputed before this Court and thus, there remains no doubt that the respondent-landlord is in bona fide need of the demised premises. No other point has been argued. Dismissed.