Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1418 (PNJ)

Ayodhya Parshad v. Pawan Kumar

2013-10-25

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2013
Rakesh Garg, J. 1. This is tenants revision petition challenging the order of his eviction dated 08.08.2011 passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent-landlord and further judgment dated 08.07.2013 of the Appellate Authority, Patiala whereby his appeal against the aforesaid order of eviction was also dismissed. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises, i.e. shop which is a part of House No. 2646-47 (2643/3) situated at Dhak Bazar, Patiala, on the ground that the petitioner has not paid rent with effect from 01.01.2005 @ ` 140 per month and further that he requires the demised premises for his and his family's use and occupation, as the accommodation in his possession was insufficient. 2. The ejectment petition was contested by the petitioner-tenant admitting the tenancy and rate of rent. 3. The petitioner in his written statement contested the ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlord on the ground of his personal necessity stating that both the daughters of the respondent are married and are residing in their matrimonial homes. The elder son of the respondent-landlord is also married and his wife is a school teacher and they are having their own house at Sirhind road, Patiala and are residing separately from him. Younger son of the respondent is working in Escorts Factory, Patiala and he has also an option of separate and independent accommodation at his disposal. Moreover, the brother of the respondent, who is residing at Chandigarh, has disposed of his entire share in favour of the respondent which has been subsequently renovated as per requirements of the respondent. The shop adjacent to that of the respondent, namely Novelty Tailors had fallen vacant after the death of tenant and the respondent-landlord has started using the same for his personal requirement, and thus, keeping in view the high strategic location of the shop in question, respondent has cooked up a story to file the instant eviction petition. In fact, the respondent is having more than sufficient accommodation at his disposal. The landlord has no bona fide necessity and it is his desire only to get the demised premises vacated. Rest of the averments were denied and dismissal of the eviction petition was prayed for. 4. The respondent-landlord filed replication controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating that of the ejectment petition. 5. The landlord has no bona fide necessity and it is his desire only to get the demised premises vacated. Rest of the averments were denied and dismissal of the eviction petition was prayed for. 4. The respondent-landlord filed replication controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating that of the ejectment petition. 5. The petitioner further tendered the rent along with interest in the Court on 03.05.2007 and thus, the ground of non-payment of rent was not pressed. 6. After considering the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Rent Controller found that there was sufficient evidence on the record to hold that the respondent-landlord requires the shop in dispute for his personal use and occupation in order to run his own business after his retirement; and thus, directed the petitioner-tenant to hand over vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the respondent-landlord. 7. The appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant against the aforesaid order of his eviction was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Patiala vide impugned judgment dated 08.07.2013. 8. While affirming the findings of the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority observed as under: It is established that the petitioner retired from private company Goetze India Ltd. on 31.12.2003. The petitioner has stated that after retirement he is unemployed and wants to run his own business. This fact has also conceded by the appellant during his cross-examination. It is now settled law that the Rent Controller while dealing with a case on the ground of personal necessity is required to presume that the need of the landlord is bona fide unless the tenant is able to prove that the same has been filed for any oblique motive. The main plea of the appellant in this case is that petitioner was having another shop adjoining to the shop in dispute and the same was vacated on account of death of the tenant. However, the petitioner has categorically stated and pleaded that the said shop was already converted into a store by the petitioner as they were not having sufficient residential accommodation. Moreover, the appellant in the present case tried to make out a case that the petitioner has sufficient residential accommodation for his family and he does not require the shop in dispute either for his residential purpose or for running his own business. Moreover, the appellant in the present case tried to make out a case that the petitioner has sufficient residential accommodation for his family and he does not require the shop in dispute either for his residential purpose or for running his own business. However, it is now settled proposition of law that the landlord has the absolute right to select any of his premises for his bona fide need and it is also well settled law that the tenant, the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority exercising the powers under the Rent Act cannot dictate the landlord to adjust his need in a particular way. So even if the petitioner has sufficient residential accommodation, the petitioner cannot be dictated to convert any part of it into shop to start his business. In this regard, I would also like to refer the case law cited as M/s. Satpal Vijay Kumar v. Sushil Kumar : 2011(1) RCR (Rent) 161 and Ashwani Kumar and others v. Pardeep Kumar and others, : 2005(1) RCR 634, wherein it has been held that landlord is the best judge of his own requirement and tenant cannot dictate him the way how to live and it is for the landlord himself to see as to what accommodation. Similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in a judgment reported as Parikshat Suri & others v. Ashok Kohli & another, : 2009(2) RCR 87, wherein it has been held that while establishing a case of bona fide requirement, the tenant cannot dictate the terms or question the bona fide of the landlord. It is held that the landlord is the best judge of the requirement. It is further held in this judgment that the Rent Controller cannot begin with the presumption that there was lack of bona fide of the requirements of the landlord. 9. Still not satisfied, the petitioner-tenant has filed the instant revision petition challenging the impugned orders of his eviction. 10. It is further held in this judgment that the Rent Controller cannot begin with the presumption that there was lack of bona fide of the requirements of the landlord. 9. Still not satisfied, the petitioner-tenant has filed the instant revision petition challenging the impugned orders of his eviction. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondent-landlord has sought eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the shop in dispute for running his own business after his retirement and merely because the respondent-landlord has pleaded that the accommodation is insufficient for his need will not be a ground to hold that his need for the shop in dispute is genuine and bonafide, as there is absolutely no evidence on record as to which business he was willing to start and if he was having sufficient money and experience to start such a business. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the absence of such an evidence, as mentioned above, the need of the respondent-landlord cannot be taken to be genuine and bonafide, and therefore, the same has to be termed as a mere wish and desire of the respondent-landlord to get the demised premises vacated. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited various judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in T. Sivasubramaniam and others v. Kasinath Pujari and others : 1999(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 236 : AIR 1999 SC 3190 ; Rajender Kumar v. Jamna Das Kote-wala 1990(2) RCR (Rent) 281; and S.J. Ebenezer v. Velayudhan and others : 1998(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 86: AIR 1998 SC 746 . 11. In all the judgments cited at bar by learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been laid down that desire of a landlord is not to be substituted as his bona fide need for the premises in dispute and the landlord must set out his need for the premises in his petition and establish that such a need is bonafide. There is no dispute to the aforesaid propositions of law and are not applicable in view of the fact that the argument raised is on different premises. 12. There is no dispute to the aforesaid propositions of law and are not applicable in view of the fact that the argument raised is on different premises. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Ram Dass Mahajan v. Brahm Bhushan : 1984(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 9 : 1984(1) All India Rent Control Journal 27; Man Singh v. Brij Lal 1980 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 682; Jaspreet Takhar v. Ghai Enterprises and others 2013(1) RCR (Rent) 469; Baljit Kumar Sharma v. Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal and another : 2013(1) RCR (Rent) 260; and Tilok Tirath Vidyavati Chhuttani Charitable Trust v. Janak Raj Ahuja : 2013(1) RCR (Rent) 563 to support his argument. 13. The reliance is misplaced. In all these judgments, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) by LRs v. M/s. Chaganlal Sundarji and Co. : AIR 1999 SC 3864 has not been noticed wherein it is held that landlord need not prove his financial status or explain the business to be set up by him while seeking ejectment on the ground of personal necessity to run his own business from the demised premises. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment reads thus: ........It is not necessary for the landlord to adduce evidence that he had money in deposit in a Bank nor produce proof of funds to prove his readiness and willingness as in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of immovable property. So far as experience is concerned, one would not think that a grocery business was one which required extraordinary expertise. It is, therefore, clear that the entire approach of both the Courts was absolutely wrong in law, and perverse on fact. Unfortunately, the High Court simply dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 227 stating that the findings were one of fact. That is why we think that this is an exceptional case calling for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid, I beg to differ with the judgments cited at the bar. 14. Unfortunately, the High Court simply dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 227 stating that the findings were one of fact. That is why we think that this is an exceptional case calling for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid, I beg to differ with the judgments cited at the bar. 14. At this stage, it is useful to refer to a judgment rendered in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. : 1998(2) RCR (Rent) 555, wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has authoritatively laid down that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he should adjust himself without getting the tenanted premises vacated and the personal necessity of the landlord is to be judged from his view point. In the aforesaid judgment, it has also been held that in a revision petition against a concurrent finding, the High Court is not to re-assess the evidence and reach to a different conclusion than the one reached by the courts below. The finding of the Appellate Authority on the question of bona fide requirement in a revision petition can be interfered with only if such finding of fact is perverse or arbitrary or the pleadings in the eviction petition are not conforming to Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which is not the case in hand. In fact, no other argument has been raised before this Court. In view thereof, I find no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed.