Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1243 (PNJ)

Rajinder Singh v. Satinder Kaur`

2014-09-02

BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON

body2014
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. 1. A petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of the tenant (petitioner herein) filed at the behest of landlord Devinder Singh Sawhney, is pending adjudication before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh. Landlord Devinder Singh Sawhney had died on 27.11.2012. His widow Smt. Satinder Kaur with the consent of the tenant was brought on record as his legal representative. Landlord Devinder Singh Sawhney was proprietor of M/s. Sahwney Plastic Industries. Now Smt. Satinder Kaur has got her name substituted for her husband and wants to run the unit herself, as all the responsibilities of the family which were being looked after by her husband have fallen on her shoulders, after being impleaded as his legal representative. 2. Pursuant to application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. eviction petition has been allowed to be amended to incorporate her plea additionally that after the demise of her husband, she requires the tenanted premises for running the unit M/s. Sawhney Plastic Industries for manufacturing of plastic bags. In short, she wants to restart the industry as its proprietor. This amendment was allowed by the Rent Controller vide the impugned order. 3. It is claimed by the petitioner-tenant that ground of personal necessity was available to the petitioner only and now the same no more survives for his widow. It is claimed that the amendment has been allowed when the case is already at the stage of adducing of rebuttal evidence and arguments. 4. No notice is being issued to the respondent to avoid delay. 5. Death is an event which is not in the control of anyone. To say that ground of personal necessity was individualistic in its tone and tenor and was only for the landlord in his individual capacity, is not correct. This ground of ejectment against the petitioner-tenant also enures for the benefit of his widow. However, the petitioner will have to establish existence of such personal necessity in the background of facts and milieu concerning her in the contemporaneous circumstances. In any case, allowing of the application for amendment of the petition ipso facto is no proof of her personal requirement of the premises so as to order eviction which aspect is yet to be determined by the Rent Controller in the light of the evidence of the parties. 6. In any case, allowing of the application for amendment of the petition ipso facto is no proof of her personal requirement of the premises so as to order eviction which aspect is yet to be determined by the Rent Controller in the light of the evidence of the parties. 6. Perusal of the eviction petition (Annexure P-1) reveals that ground of personal necessity was pleaded for the family as running of the unit by him was for the whole family but due to his heart ailment he had not able to run the said unit. After recovery from his ailment, he had sought eviction of the premises to run the unit himself but unfortunately he had died during pendency of the petition. Authorities Raj Kumar Vij v. Hem Raj Singla and others, (2008-1) 149 P.L.R. 618 and Arun Vig v. Maya Guglani, 2013 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 274 cited by the petitioners, in peculiar circumstances of the case in hand, do not sustain the cause of the petitioners. 7. Rather there is judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as 2004 (8) S.C.C. 76 titled Kedar Nath Agrawal (Dead) v. Dhanraji Devi (Dead) by LRs, wherein it was held that where eviction is sought by the landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement and during the pendency of the application, the landlord dies, his legal representatives can prosecute such application on the basis of their own need in substitution of the need of the deceased. In yet another decision rendered on 4.8.2014 in CR No. 2618 of 2012 titled Ajit Singh Zakhmi v. Nirmal Jindal by this Court, it was held that ground of personal necessity on the death of respondent/landlord does not become redundant and right, title or interest of the widow of the landlord on her impleadment in substitution of her husband/landlord requires to be determined. 8. In any case the impugned order does not prejudice the right, claim and interest of the tenant in the rent petition. He will have opportunity to file reply restricting to amendment sought in the petition and would also have on opportunity to cross examine the petitioner and her witnesses to be brought by her in support of her claim. He would also be have an opportunity to lead his independent evidence. 9. He will have opportunity to file reply restricting to amendment sought in the petition and would also have on opportunity to cross examine the petitioner and her witnesses to be brought by her in support of her claim. He would also be have an opportunity to lead his independent evidence. 9. So far as matter of delay is concerned generally tenant is not interested in expeditious disposal of such eviction petition but since the matter was at the final stage, the Rent Controller would decide the petition within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order even by taking day to day proceedings, if found necessary. 10. No ground to interfere in the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. Copy dasti on usual charges.