Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 578 (PNJ)

Prem Rani v. Rakesh Handa

2013-05-04

K.KANNAN

body2013
JUDGMENT K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The revision petition is at the instance of the landlords assailing the concurrent orders of rejection of the one of the petitioner's alleged requirement for establishing his own business. The landlords were brothers and co-owners of the property. They sought for ejectment on the ground that one of them, namely, the 3rd petitioner required the property for establishing a shoe business which he was adept at, having been involved in the said business and working with one Gurnam Singh. The tenant pleaded that the landlords owned two other buildings which they had not disclosed and the requirements of the petitioners were not bona fide. It was further elicited from the landlords that two other shops were owned only by one of them, namely, Rajinder Parshad and the person for whose requirement the property was sought, namely, Radha Krishan had no concern with the property owned by his brother. 2. At the trial, the landlords examined Gurnam Singh, who stated that Radha Krishan was working in his shop but he was not paying any remuneration or salary, while Radha Krishan himself gave evidence that he was being paid 700/- per month. Along with this discrepant evidence, the Rent Controller observed that the landlords did not give any detail of the extent of two other shops except an assertion that two shops belonged to Rajinder Parshad and that they were situate in a far away place. The Rent Controller therefore found that the landlords' requirements could not be stated to be statutorily complied with. 3. After the petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller, in appeal, the landlords have attempted to produce the documents of sale with reference to two other shops in the name of Rajinder Parshad as additional evidence. The appellate Court had rejected the documents as not capable of being received and has affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller that the discrepant versions of Gurnam Singh and Radha Krishan themselves betrayed want of bona fides. 4. I will not make an issue of the fact that the landlord gave evidence to the effect that he was receiving ` 700/- from Gurnam Singh, while Gurnam Singh himself stated that he was not paying any amount as obtaining any particular importance to discredit the petitioners' claim. 4. I will not make an issue of the fact that the landlord gave evidence to the effect that he was receiving ` 700/- from Gurnam Singh, while Gurnam Singh himself stated that he was not paying any amount as obtaining any particular importance to discredit the petitioners' claim. There is however surely legal requirements under Section 13 for a landlord who prosecuted a claim for ejectment to prove that he was not possessing of any other building within the same notified area nor he had vacated any other building. If all the co-owners as landlords were joining to file a petition for requirement of one of them and the tenant was able to show the ownership of one of the petitioners-landlords in respect of two other buildings, it was bound to be explained by the landlord as to how the other two shops could not be used for the benefit of one of them and in what capacity the brother held the said property. If the document had been filed at the trial, it should have been definitely possible for the tenant to make enquiries with reference to the nature of the user of the property and bring appropriate evidence to support his own plea of want of bona fides. The document which was filed in appellate Court, though relevant has not been considered only because it was not filed at the appropriate period during the time before the Rent Controller. I am of the view that the reception of the documents and evidence that may be allowed to be given by both the parties would secure the interest of justice and the reception of the documents cannot be without setting aside the order passed by the courts below. The orders of the courts below would require to be reexamined in the light of the documentary evidence produced as regards the ownership of two other buildings within the same municipal area. The nature of user at the time of the petition before the Rent Controller or any other subsequent event that could be relevant shall be permitted to be brought by the additional evidence. Needless to state that the landlords' own evidence cannot conclude the issue and the tenant shall also have an opportunity to explain the documents, both as regards the ownership and possession to the extent to which they are relevant. 5. Needless to state that the landlords' own evidence cannot conclude the issue and the tenant shall also have an opportunity to explain the documents, both as regards the ownership and possession to the extent to which they are relevant. 5. The orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Rent Controller for consideration of the additional evidence filed before the appellate Court and for disposal of the rent petition in accordance with law. The remand shall be confined only to the evidence regarding the additional document and no other evidence shall be permitted to be presented by either of the parties. 6. Having regard to the fact that the case was instituted in in the year 1996, the Rent Controller shall make endeavour to dispose of the case as early as possible treating the case as old and fit for disposal as one of the targeted cases for disposal within the next quarter of the year. 7. The revision petition is ordered accordingly.