Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1008 (PNJ)

Jaswant Singh v. Taran Rani

2014-07-03

MAHESH GROVER

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Mahesh Grover, J. (Oral) - The petitioner is a tenant in the demised premises which is a portion of a residential house rented out to the petitioner for running a shop by the respondent-landlady. The tenancy commenced in the year 1977 and a petition for eviction under Section 13 of the Rent Act was filed by the respondent-landlady on the following grounds: (i) non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1.2.1989, (ii) that the petitioner had ceased to occupy the premises, (iii) bonafide need and (iv) material impairment of the value and utility of the premises. 2. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition while the Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller ordering the eviction of the petitioner which is now the cause of grievance to him. The Appellate Authority while deciding the issue before it ordered the eviction only on the ground of personal necessity while negating the plea of the respondent-landlady on the issue of cessation of occupation. The rent having been paid had largely rendered this issue redundant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the Appellate Authority is erroneous and liable to be set aside and there has been complete mis-appreciation of the issue of personal necessity. Hence this is the only issue which needs to be decided as the respondent-landlady has not filed any cross petition impugning the findings recorded on other issues by both the Courts against him. 4. The Court has examined the plea of necessity taken by the respondent-landlady. The respondent-landlady has pleaded that she is a widow aged more than 50 years at the time of filing of the petition and that she required the demised premises for her use and occupation as also for the family which consists of five members including herself, her son, daughterin- law and two grand-children. She stated that she is residing at the first floor which comprises of one store and two rooms which is not sufficient to accommodate all the family members and before renting out the premises to the petitioner, this portion was being used as a sitting room (Baithak). 5. On appraisal of the material on record, I am of the view that no infirmity has been committed by the Appellate Authority in appreciating the evidence regarding the plea of bonafide necessity taken up by the respondent-landlady. 5. On appraisal of the material on record, I am of the view that no infirmity has been committed by the Appellate Authority in appreciating the evidence regarding the plea of bonafide necessity taken up by the respondent-landlady. The respondent has sufficiently proved that she being a lady of an advanced age is unable to climb the stairs to reach the first floor and during the pendency of the petition, she has also suffered a dislocation of hip and fracture of the leg which further compounded her problem. Apart from this, it is evident that the family of five members cannot stay in two rooms and a small store on the first floor and, therefore, if the old lady in the evening of her life had expressed a desire to be more suitably accommodated in her own premises, no fault can be found in such a desire as the same would evidently converge upon the need as well. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1998(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 533 (S.C.), has held as under :- “14. The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bonafide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms of the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.” 7. Similarly, in Atma S.Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh 2003(1) Rent L.R. 186, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under :- “Landlord is the best judge of his residential requirements. He has a complete freedom in the matter. Similarly, in Atma S.Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh 2003(1) Rent L.R. 186, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under :- “Landlord is the best judge of his residential requirements. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own.” 8. The petition is, therefore, found to be without any merit and is dismissed. The order of the Appellate Court is upheld. The petitioner is directed to vacate the premises forthwith. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that if some time is granted to vacate the premises, the petitioner would furnish an undertaking before the learned Rent Controller and vacate the rented premises. In view of his request, petitioner is granted time till 31.3.2015 to vacate the premises. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid fact, the petition is disposed of with a further direction that the petitioner shall furnish an undertaking within a period of three weeks from today before the learned Rent Controller to the following effect:- 1. That he shall hand over physical vacant possession of the premises to the respondent on or before 31.3.2015. 2. That he shall pay all arrears of rent/mesne profits as determined by the learned Appellate Authority upto date to the respondent within two weeks from today. 3. That he shall continue to make payment of rent/ mesne profits by the 7th of each month till the physical vacant possession of the demised premises is handed over to the respondent. 4. That he shall not commit any default in payment of arrears of rent or the monthly rent/mesne profits and that even a single default will disentitle him to the benefit of this order. 5. That if the arrears of rent or the monthly rent/mesne profits is not paid as aforesaid, the landlady shall forthwith be entitled to get the eviction order executed. 6. That the physical vacant possession of the demised premises shall be handed over to the landlady in the condition as it exists today. 7. 5. That if the arrears of rent or the monthly rent/mesne profits is not paid as aforesaid, the landlady shall forthwith be entitled to get the eviction order executed. 6. That the physical vacant possession of the demised premises shall be handed over to the landlady in the condition as it exists today. 7. That if the petitioner makes an attempt to deviate from the undertaking, the landlady shall be entitled to apprise the Rent Controller, who shall proceed to get the demised premises vacated and to hand over the physical vacant possession thereof to her by granting police assistance at the first instance itself. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————