Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 42 (PNJ)

Raj Kumar v. Kanak Prabha Bhatia

2013-01-14

JASWANT SINGH

body2013
Jaswant Singh, J.— Petitioner(tenant) is in revision under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban(Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the concurrent findings returned by both the courts below, whereby the ejectment application filed by the respondent(landlady) on the ground of personal necessity for herself as well as for settling her son, who was working in Dubai and has come back to India, in the house in question was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Gurgaon vide its order dated 28.04.2012 and the findings thereof were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Gurgaon vide its order dated 18.12.2012. In brief, facts of the case are that respondent(landlady) Mrs. Kanak Prabha Bhatia filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner(tenant) Raj Kumar Parshad from house no.2043, Sector 4, Urban Estate, Gurgaon. It was averred in the petition that the demised premises was required by son of respondent(landlady) namely Garv Bhatia who was working in Dubai and intends to come back to India and settle himself. Personal requirement of landlady herself was also pleaded who has been serving as a teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Delhi Cantt. Thus, the need for herself as well as her son was projected by the landlady. Upon notice, the ejectment application was resisted by the petitioner(tenant) on the ground that the necessity as projected is false and frivolous. It was denied that respondent(landlady) requires the demised premises for herself and for her son. Replication was filed, wherein the entire contents of the petition were reiterated and those of the written statement were denied. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides led their evidence in support of their respective claims and after appreciating their evidence, learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application and the findings thereof were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. Hence the present revision petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully with their able assistance. Learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) has argued that both the courts below have not appreciated the evidence in right perspective, whereby the landlady had admitted in her cross examination that she has not got herself transferred to Gurgaon where the demised premises is situated from Delhi where she is serving as a school teacher. Learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) has argued that both the courts below have not appreciated the evidence in right perspective, whereby the landlady had admitted in her cross examination that she has not got herself transferred to Gurgaon where the demised premises is situated from Delhi where she is serving as a school teacher. It was further argued that it is evident from the cross examination of the landlady that she has not even applied for transfer to Gurgaon. Thus, the element of need which is required under Section 13 of the Rent Act is completely absent and only a mere greed. It has also been argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner/tenant that no doubt son of the landlady has come back to India but he is already living in Delhi in the house owned by his father(husband of the landlady) where he is also operating a consultancy firm from house itself. Thus, it was argued that in view of the above mentioned circumstances, it cannot be said that the necessity as has been projected by the landlady in her ejectment application is made out and consequently prayer was made for dismissal of the ejectment petition and acceptance of present petition. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent/caveator has argued that it is an admitted fact that the son of landlady has now come back from Dubai. It is further argued that son of landlady has been somehow managing his work of consultancy from house in Delhi which is a small flat in the society situated on the upper floor. It has also been argued that the landlady is a aged lady who is not able to climb stairs and thus it is extremely difficult for her to live in the flat at Delhi and hence, it cannot be stated that the necessity that has been projected by the landlady is a mere greed and not necessity. After hearing learned Counsel for parties and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the opinion that present revision petition is devoid of any merit and same deserves to be dismissed. It is not in dispute that the son of landlady has come back from Dubai and is living in the house at Delhi with his parents. After hearing learned Counsel for parties and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the opinion that present revision petition is devoid of any merit and same deserves to be dismissed. It is not in dispute that the son of landlady has come back from Dubai and is living in the house at Delhi with his parents. It is also not in dispute that the son has been doing his work of consultancy firm from his flat which is in a society and admittedly on the upper floor. In such given circumstances, it cannot be said that the averments that were made by the respondent(landlady) in her petition regarding requirement of the demised premises for her son are frivolous. Admittedly, the demised premises is a 500 square yards property whereas the premises where the landlady is at present residing in Delhi is a much smaller property. Hence, the argument that the husband of landlady is the owner of a flat in a society where she is residing with her family does not hold any forte as it is for the landlady to see as to which property is best suited to her and where she can reside properly especially when she is an aged lady and not able to climb stairs. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that respondent/landlady is not the owner of the property which is in Delhi and rather, it is her husband who is owner and thus, it is the sweet will of the landlady to utilize the property which is under her ownership in the best possible manner. The other argument that has been raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the landlady has still not applied for the transfer from Delhi to Gurgaon is also devoid of any merit, for the reason that the building in Gurgaon(i.e. Demised premises) is already in occupation of the petitioner(tenant) and does not seem to be be feasible for the respondent (landlady) to apply for transfer and after getting herself transferred from Delhi to Gurgaon, then travel a great distance from Delhi to Gurgaon and wait till the property is vacated by the petitioner(tenant), who is fighting tooth and nail against her. It does not appeal to a prudent man to get herself transferred from Delhi to Gurgaon until and unless there is an accommodation to live. It does not appeal to a prudent man to get herself transferred from Delhi to Gurgaon until and unless there is an accommodation to live. Admittedly, the rate of rent in Gurgaon are extremely high, which is a commercial hub of Haryana and thus, nobody would like to take a rash decision and get herself transferred from Delhi to Gurgaon until and unless the accommodation is available for occupation. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.