Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1377 (PNJ)

Girwar Singh v. Jai Chand

2013-10-11

RAJESH BINDAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal J. The tenant has filed the present petition challenging the order 23.2.2012, passed by the appellate authority, whereby he has been directed to be evicted from the premises in dispute. The petitioner is a tenant in half portion of the premises in question, namely, 15' x 20', which is part of Industrial Shed No. 930, Phase II, Industrial Area, U.T., Chandigarh. It was taken on rent on 17.12.1984 @ `350/per month which, as is evident from the pleadings, was increased to `750/per month. The eviction was sought on the ground of nonpayment of rent and bonafide personal necessity of the landlord and his sons. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition, whereas in appeal, the order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside and eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute was directed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ground on which eviction of the petitioner has been directed is the personal necessity of the landlord. It has been pleaded by the respondent landlord that two of his sons are already carrying on business in part of the premises in dispute and eviction of the petitioner has been sought on the ground that the same is required for expansion, however, no evidence to that effect has been led. In fact, the respondent or his sons are not carrying on the business of the kind claimed in the premises in dispute, hence, there is no question of expansion. However, he did not dispute that two of the sons of the respondent are carrying on some business in the premises, but the same is not of that magnitude which required expansion and for the purpose of which eviction of the petitioner was required from the premises in dispute. He further submitted that in the eviction petition, size of the property in possession of the petitioner was shown as 15' x 10', whereas the same is 15' x 20'. A petition for seeking partial eviction was not maintainable. It was further submitted that earlier the respondent got one office room and toilet vacated and used the same by setting up a STD booth. The effort of the respondent is to evict the petitioner from the premises in dispute and let out the entire building at an exorbitant rent or dispose of the same. It was further submitted that earlier the respondent got one office room and toilet vacated and used the same by setting up a STD booth. The effort of the respondent is to evict the petitioner from the premises in dispute and let out the entire building at an exorbitant rent or dispose of the same. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellate authority, after appreciating the evidence led, had found the need of the respondent to be genuine. The finding of fact should not be disturbed in the revisional jurisdiction. Mere statement made by the landlord that he seeks the premises for his personal use and occupation is enough. No evidence is required to be led. It is a small plot of five marlas with a constructed hall measuring 15' x 40', half of which is on rent with the petitioner. It was let out when the respondent was in service and his sons were not grown up. Now two of his sons are already working in part of the premises, whereas third son, who was in the profession of repairing scooters on road side, has been uprooted by the Municipal Corporation and he has also joined his two other brothers in the business at the same premises. The respondent himself has retired from service and in fact all four members of the family are earning their livelihood from the premises in question. Learned counsel further submitted that the tenant has not produced any evidence to show that any of the sons of the respondent is carrying on any other business to dislodge the claim made in the eviction petition. Merely because account books have not been produced on record does not mean that need of the respondent is not genuine. The mere fact that four members of the family are dependent for their livelihood on the small premises clearly establishes the fact that need is genuine and it is not merely a wish or greed. The plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent will let out the premises or dispose of the same is totally misconceived for the reason that the respondent has no other source of livelihood. The plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent will let out the premises or dispose of the same is totally misconceived for the reason that the respondent has no other source of livelihood. There are sufficient safeguards in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and further the respondent had already filed an affidavit dated 18.3.2013 in this court that he will neither let out nor sell or transfer the property in question to any one during his life time. The fact that the respondent had not sought increase in the rent clearly establishes that he is not after money, however, from the date the order of eviction was passed, the respondent is entitled to mesne profits. The rent of the premises of the kind in question in the area is ranging from `42.50 to `50/per square feet. The registered lease deeds in support thereof have been placed on record as Annexures R3 and R4 with the application for grant of mesne profits. It was further submitted that mentioning of size of the premises in possession of the petitioner as 15' x 10' was merely a typographical error, which was clarified in the replication, which was so accepted by the court below, hence, nothing hinges on that. In response to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once there is misreading of evidence, this court can always interfere in revisional jurisdiction. In fact, the findings recorded are perverse. If the entire facts on record are considered, the same do not make out a case for personal necessity. He further submitted that the lease deeds produced by the landlord for fixation of mesne profits cannot be relied upon as these pertain to the properties located on prime location on the front side, whereas part of the premises in possession of the petitioner is in back side. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Some of the facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner is in possession of half of the constructed hall, namely, 15'x20' of the premises in dispute, which was taken on rent by him way back in December, 1984. The eviction petition has been filed by the respondent on the ground that the same is required by him for his use and also for use of his sons. The eviction petition has been filed by the respondent on the ground that the same is required by him for his use and also for use of his sons. Two of his sons are already doing business in the premises in question is also not in dispute. It has been pleaded by the respondent that his third son, who was carrying on business of scooter repair on road side, has been uprooted by the Municipal Corporation, as a result of which he has also joined his brothers in the business being carried on in the premises in dispute. The respondent himself, who was in private service, had retired three years back and has joined his sons in the business. At present, the respondent and his three grown up sons are to carry on business in the premises in dispute. They are in possession of half portion of the hall measuring 15'x20' and one small office and toilet. When four persons are to earn their livelihood from the premises in dispute, in my opinion, it cannot be said to be a case of merely a greed and not a genuine need. Mere nonproduction of account books and other documents, as is sought to be claimed by the petitioner, is of no consequence in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The respondent and his sons are having a workshop. They are self employed persons earning their livelihood by working themselves. Expansion is a relative term, which has different meaning in different situations. It is not in dispute that when office portion was vacated, STD booth was set up. The respondent is not in capacity to set up new industrial unit. He is to carry on small activities as per the need in the area. As for a small stationery shop owner even setting up a photostat machine or a computer/printer may amount to expansion. For big industrial houses the expansion may mean setting up of new unit spending crores of rupees. In my opinion, there is no evidence produced on record by either of the parties, which has either been ignored or misread. Mere small discrepancies here and there do not make out a case for interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction, if considered in totality. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Mere small discrepancies here and there do not make out a case for interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction, if considered in totality. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The petitioner is granted two months' time to hand over vacant physical possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent landlord. However, in case of failure, the respondent shall be entitled to mesne profits from the date of order of the appellate authority till vacant physical possession of the premises in dispute is handed over to him @ 6,000/per month.