Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 614 (PNJ)

Rekha Rani v. Raj Kumar Jindal

2013-05-09

K.KANNAN

body2013
K. Kannan, J. CM No. 11064-CII of 2013 Application is allowed. The case is advanced and taken up for consideration and admission. Civil Revision No. 6900 of 2012 1. The revision petition is at the instance of the tenants challenging the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller as affirmed by the appellate authority. The case of the landlord has been upheld on his plea of personal necessity for establishing his own surgical clinic, he being a retired Assistant Professor in Medical Institute at Patiala. The contention is that the property is situate in his native village near the place of his residence and that he wants to set up a surgical unit at the demised property. He would aver in the petition that he was not possessed of any other nonresidential building in the same notified municipal area nor had he vacated any other property. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners states that the landlord is a big landowner owning several properties and the landlord has been guilty of suppression of several items of properties of which he was the owner along with his father as a member of a joint family. The learned counsel refers me to a position of other properties by a graphic sketch setting out the location of various properties. From the sketch, it is revealed that he has a plot in about 2,000 square feet of land on the hospital road towards Bhiwanigarh road. Yet another property is a land measuring 38 biswas where cauliflower is grown. Yet another property is a cold storage about which the learned counsel places reference to the cross-examination of the petitioner where it was elicited, "outside bouran gate cold storage, there is 2/3 bighas land adjoining the same in 1980-81. Some plots were sold out of the same in cold storage. There is 10/15 bighas land. After cold storage, there is 7/8 acres of agricultural land." If there is a vacant land available adjoining cold storage and there is an agricultural land, I cannot take this to be a disqualification under Section 13. Some plots were sold out of the same in cold storage. There is 10/15 bighas land. After cold storage, there is 7/8 acres of agricultural land." If there is a vacant land available adjoining cold storage and there is an agricultural land, I cannot take this to be a disqualification under Section 13. If only there is yet another nonresidential building, which is vacant that can be occupied by the landlord or there is yet another non-residential building which he had vacated only in order to claim ejectment, it could be stated that the landlord would be fettered by the legislative mandate prescribed under Section13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Act. A mere possession of some other property which may not be suitable, cannot be a disqualification. While I have agreed that the landlord is bound to disclose the property, I will understand this to be confined only to such of those buildings which are bound to be disclosed and state as to how they are not fit for his occupation. The possession of a property which is put to some other use or a possession of vacant land that is not used as a non-residential building is immaterial. Even a non-disclosure of such property in the original pleadings which is brought out in the written statement of the tenant but explained by the landlord about the particular manner of user when particulars are brought by the tenant, it will be sufficient for the Court to apprise the evidence to test the bona fides. 2. I do not find that any case is made out for subjecting the concurrent decisions of the Courts below for an intervention in the revision petition. 3. The learned counsel states that the petitioners are carrying on their business for several decades and if they are made to vacate, they will be put to great hardship. He is said to be paying rent @ Rs. 100/- for 3 months. The counsel says that he shall be ready and willing to pay the market rent, if he is allowed sufficient time to vacate. On a consideration of the relevant facts, even while dismissing the civil revision, I am of the view that the tenant will have a period of 12 months to vacate on condition that he gives an undertaking before the Court that he will pay an amount of Rs. On a consideration of the relevant facts, even while dismissing the civil revision, I am of the view that the tenant will have a period of 12 months to vacate on condition that he gives an undertaking before the Court that he will pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month which he continue from today till the completion of 12 months. The undertaking shall be given within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the Executing Court where the case for execution is said to be pending. The civil revision is disposed of but with the time granted as aforesaid.