Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1508 (PNJ)

Gulshan Kumar Jain v. Neena Jauhar

2013-11-18

JASWANT SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT JASWANT SINGH, J. Petitioner (tenant) is in revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the concurrent findings returned by the Authorities below, whereby the ejectment application preferred by the respondents (landlords) on the ground of personal necessity of respondent no.2 Munish Jauhar has been allowed and the demised premises which is second floor of SCO No.11, Sector 17E, Chandigarh has been ordered to be vacated vide order of learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh dated 01.02.2012 and the findings thereof have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide its judgment dated 03.08.2013. In brief, facts of the case are that the respondents(landlords) have projected the necessity of respondent no.2 Munish Jauhar on the ground that said Munish Jauhar had done Masters in Computer Application and has established/opened up his own concern on the remaining portion adjoining the demised premises under the name and style of “Grey Cell Technologies Exports”. Thus it was stated that the demised premises was required. It has also been averred that due to paucity of accommodation and non vacation of the premises by the petitioner(tenant), respondent no.2 Munish Jauhar had to take additional accommodation i.e. complete floor of SCO No.15, Sector 17E, Chandigarh on monthly rent from September 2006. Thus, prayer was made for ejectment of the petitioner(tenant) from the demised premises. Upon notice, all the material averments were denied and it was also stated that there is no necessity as alleged by the respondents (landlords) and also that the present premises is not suitable for the purpose of doing business and respondent no.2 Munish Jauhar can start his business from SCO No.282, Sector 32, Chandigarh which is also owned by respondents(landlords) and is more suitable for the business of respondent no.2 Munish Jauhar. Apart from that, it was also averred that many floors of the demised premises have been let out to different tenants at different points of time and thus, the necessity as projected is not proved at all. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides lead their evidence in support of their respective claims and after appreciating their evidence, learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh allowed the eviction petition and the findings thereof were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. Hence the present revision petition. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides lead their evidence in support of their respective claims and after appreciating their evidence, learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh allowed the eviction petition and the findings thereof were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. Hence the present revision petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file carefully with their able assistance. Learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) has argued that there is illegality and perversity in the findings regarding the personal necessity of the respondent(landlords), as the Authorities below have ignored the impact of documents Ex.RW6/A, Ex.RW6/B and oral evidence of RW6 himself. It was further argued that Ex.RW6/A is lease deed executed by the landlords in the year 2008 with respect to the portion on the third floor in favour of another tenant during the pendency of the rent petition and similarly Ex.RW6/B is a lease deed qua Sunil Kumar Jaggi who was also inducted as a tenant on the third floor itself. It was also argued that the lease deed of this tenant was renewed during the pendency of the rent petition vide deed Ex.R3/A. The second argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) is that at the time of filing of the eviction petition on 11.05.2007, another premises bearing SCO No.282, Sector 32, Chandigarh was available to the respondents(landlords) and on the said premises, the respondents(landlords) could have easily started the business of respondent no.2 Munish Jauhar. Finally, it was argued that the Appellate Authority is the last Court of fact and it has committed grave illegality by not discussing all the evidence lead on record. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Caveators/respondents(landlords) has argued that the lease deeds as relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) are of no help to him because they are with respect to third floor of the premises and the requirement of Munish Jauhar is to start his business on the remaining second floor portion of the premises where he is already doing his business. While rebutting the second argument, learned Counsel for the respondents(landlords) have argued that qua SCO No.282, Sector 32, Chandigarh, an application for leading additional evidence was also preferred by the petitioner(tenant) before the learned Appellate Authority, whereby it was tried to be proved on record that the premises in sector 32, is being proposed to be let out as a board of “To Let” was displayed on the premises. It was argued that the said application was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority and a revision preferred by the petitioner (tenant) was also dismissed by this Court which is reported as 2013(1) RLR 117 and same has even been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) No.4317 of 2013 decided on 6.5.2013. Finally, it was argued that there is no plea as raised by the tenant before the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh which has not been considered by it at the time of giving the final decision. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of any merit and same deserves to be dismissed. In the present case, it is apparent from the record that the necessity as projected by the respondents (landlords) is of Munish Jauhar, who is already doing business on the second floor which is adjoining the premises in question. It is further apparent from the record and not even disputed by counsel for both the parties that respondent no.2 Munish Jauhar is carrying on business at a large scale and having numerous employees and besides carrying on business in the remaining portion adjoining the demised premises on the same floor, has taken on rent additional accommodation of entire IIIrd floor of adjoining SCO No.15, Sector 17E, Chandigarh. In such situation, when a person is carrying on a business on a particular floor and is settled, then it is natural for him to expand his business as far as possible, on the same floor so that no inconvenience is caused to him. Not only this, in this situation the age old principle that the landlord is the best judge is squarely applicable and thus, the tenant cannot dictate terms to him so as to negate his plea of personal necessity. Not only this, in this situation the age old principle that the landlord is the best judge is squarely applicable and thus, the tenant cannot dictate terms to him so as to negate his plea of personal necessity. It is evident from the ejectment application that the necessity of only second floor has been projected by the respondents (landlords) and not of any other floor. The facts and circumstances of the case also show that the said need is justified and appeals to the logic of a prudent man. Thus letting out or reconfirming of lease to other tenants during the pendency of the rent application of a floor, which is other than the second floor is a completely justified act on part of the respondents (landlords) and do not in any way dent the need of the landlords. As far as the second plea regarding availability of the another premises i.e. SCO No.282, Sector 32, Chandigarh is concerned, again principle of landlord is the best judge comes into the picture and tenant is nobody to dictate the terms. Even otherwise, this Court, while deciding an application for leading of additional evidence of the present petitioner(tenant) in a Civil Revision No.5815 of 2012 decided on 01.10.2012 had observed that the premises of Sector 32, Chandigarh was got vacated by respondent no.3 Ishwinder Singh Jauhar (brother of Munish Jauhar) for his own personal necessity and subsequently, through compromises got the vacant possession of entire SCO No.282, Sector 32D, Chandigarh. Thus, under these circumstances the application was rejected by this Court in Civil Revision preferred by the petitioner (tenant). This reasoning has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.4317 of 2013 and under these circumstances, the availability of premises in Sector 32, Chandigarh by no way, enhances the case of petitioner(tenant) regarding their being no personal necessity of respondents(landlords). Finally, this Court has gone through the entire reasoning given by the Authorities below and do not find any illegality or infirmity in the same and thus the same are hereby affirmed as all the evidence led by both the parties have been properly appreciated by the Authorities below. Finally, this Court has gone through the entire reasoning given by the Authorities below and do not find any illegality or infirmity in the same and thus the same are hereby affirmed as all the evidence led by both the parties have been properly appreciated by the Authorities below. Before parting with the judgment it is necessary to deal with CM No.22332CII of 2013 filed by the petitioner(tenant) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC by placing on record Annexures P8 and P9 as additional evidence. Learned Counsel for the tenant has argued that a perusal of Annexure P8, which is order dated 20.04.1999, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh would show that against a tenant sitting on ground floor, an eviction petition was filed by respondents (landlords) and necessity of Munish Jauhar was projected, whereby it was averred that Munish Jauhar is studying Masters in Computer Application and he intends to start business in demised premises. The said ejectment application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide order dated 20.04.1999(Annexure P8). However, surprisingly, in the year 2000, the landlords entered into a compromise with the tenant and execute a lease deed in his favour for 31 years. Thus, through the application learned Counsel has argued that no personal necessity is made out. However, after hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) this court is not inclined to allow the said application as the application does not go to the root of the present matter. As is evident from the order dated 20.04.1999(P8), Munish Jauhar was studying at that time and not working. However, at the time of filing present ejectment application, Munish Jauhar is working at a large scale and is doing business on the same floor where the demised premises is situated. Thus reliance by learned Counsel on Annexure A8 and A9 are misconceived, as the necessity keeps on changing with time and present case is a classic example where the necessity of landlord is proved to the hilt. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, as well as application for additional evidence the same are hereby dismissed.