Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1251 (PNJ)

Inderjit Singh v. Avinash Chander

2014-09-03

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2014
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. The tenant is in revision against the order of eviction passed by both the Courts below. The case set up by the respondent-landlord is that initially he rented out shop No. 3 to the petitioner for running iron grill business at a monthly rent of ` 250/- including house tax, but later on another adjoining shop No. 2 was also let out to the petitioner for the same business at the monthly rent of ` 850/- besides house tax. Both the shops No. 2 and 3 are part of building bearing Property No. B-XXXIV,-2333 (old) and B-XXXIV-9090 (new), situated at Main Road, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana. He asked for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and material impairment of the value and utility of the building. It was alleged that both the shops have independent access from the road and intervening wall of both the shops was a load bearing wall. The petitioner, without the knowledge, notice and consent of the respondent, had removed the intervening load bearing wall, as a result of which the whole structure has become endangered and it could fall at any time. The eviction was also sought on the ground of bona fide personal use and occupation of the respondent himself. The landlord has alleged that he has 4 shops in the aforesaid building. He was earlier working with Prem Store, Basati Bazar, Ludhiana and after 30 years of service, left the j ob and now he wanted to start his own business of Miniari/Gift Items in the said shops being a suitable place for the same as Haibowal area is a fast developing area and has much scope for the said business. It was also alleged that the other two shops are required for the need of his son Ganesh Pahwa who wanted to open the hosiery showroom. The respondent also alleged that he has no other commercial building except these shops in the above said building and there is no other shop owned and possessed by the respondent nor he has vacated any shop/commercial building within the municipal limits of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (here-in-after referred to as the "Act"). 2. 2. The petitioner contested the eviction petition, inter alia, on the ground that it is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed with an ulterior motive without any fault on his part. The landlord is guilty of suppression of true and material facts from the Court. The landlord wants to get the tenant evicted as he had refused to enhance the rent. On merits, the tenant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, but denied that he is in arrears of rent and averred that he had always been ready and willing to tender the rent, but the respondent-landlord did not receive the same despite repeated requests. He had deposited an amount of ` 68,601/- in the Court on 06.02.2007 and the landlord had accepted the same, therefore, the ground of eviction for nonpayment is not available. He denied that he had committed any act of causing material impairment of the value and utility of the building. It was admitted that both the shops have independent access from the road, but denied that the intervening wall was a load bearing wall and that the said wall has been removed without knowledge, notice and consent of the landlord and because of the removal of the intervening wall, the structure had become endangered. It was pleaded that shop No. 2 was taken on rent in the year 1981 and he took another shop No. 3 in the year 1991 with a condition to remove the intervening wall of both the shops and as such, shops No. 2 and 3 became a single shop. 3. The respondent-landlord denied the averments made in the written statement in the replication and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller.- "1. Whether the petitioner requires the said shops for his personal use and occupation/personal necessity? OPP. 2. Whether the act of respondents have materially impaired the value & utility of the building? OPP. 3. Whether the respondents are in arrears of rent of the two said shops? OPP. 4. If the issue Nos. 1 and 2 are proved? OPP. 5. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected from the demised property? OPP. 6. Whether the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPR. 7. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR. 8. Relief." 4. OPP. 4. If the issue Nos. 1 and 2 are proved? OPP. 5. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected from the demised property? OPP. 6. Whether the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPR. 7. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR. 8. Relief." 4. The respondent-landlord examined himself as AW-1 and Satya Saroop as AW-2, whereas the petitioner examined himself as RW-1, Iqbal Singh as RW-2, Ravinder Kumar as RW-3 and Ranjit Singh Rana as RW-4. Both the parties also led their documentary evidence. 5. The learned Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent-landlord holding his personal bona fide necessity to seek eviction of the petitioner and also decided issue No. 2 as well in favour of the landlord. As a result of the finding recorded on issues No. 1 and 2, the eviction order was passed on 20.05.2013. Aggrieved against the said order of eviction, the petitioner filed appeal which was also dismissed by the Appellate Court on 15.11.2013. 6. In the present revision, at the time of notice of motion, the following order was recorded by this Court:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a specific averment was made in the rent petition supported by subsequent material as well to contend that respondent-landlord did not have any other commercial premises in his name and had not got the same vacated through any Court of law but the facts would speak otherwise if the additional material which has been placed on record by way of miscellaneous application is perused. Notice of motion for 01.08.2014. Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. In the meantime, dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue to pay the rent as determined by the Court and shall also clear all the arrears of the rent upto date within a period of three weeks from today." 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the landlord had 4 shops, out of which shop in possession of the tenant Ramesh Chander was vacated on 28.02.2013 as Civil Revision No. 3369 of 2012 filed by him was dismissed on 29.05.2012 by granting him 9 months time to vacate the demised premises. The said period was over on 28.02.2013, whereas the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 15.11.2013. The said period was over on 28.02.2013, whereas the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 15.11.2013. Thus, it is argued that the respondent has misled the Court below by making an averment that he had not got vacated any shop or commercial premises in the municipal limits of Ludhiana after the commencement of the Act. 8. The respondent has also filed CM No. 15095-CII of 2014 in order to bring on record copies of the order dated 29.05.2012 passed in Rent Application No. 19 of 04.04.2006, statement dated 12.04.2007 and the order dated 12.04.2007 passed by the Rent Controller. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that he has 4 shops in the building bearing shops No. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Shop No. 1 was in occupation of Ramesh Chander, whereas shop No. 4 was with Manmohan Singh and shops No. 2 and 3 were with the present petitioner Inderjit Singh. He had filed Rent Application No. 21 of 01.04.2006 against Ramesh Chander in respect of shop No. 4 which was allowed by the Rent Controller on 22.11.2010. In that case, the matter reached upto the High Court in CR No. 3369 of 2012 and vide order dated 29.05.2012, the said tenant Ramesh Chander was granted 9 months time to vacate the demised premises, which was actually over by 28.02.2013. Rent Application No. 19 dated 04.04.2006 is regarding shop No. 1 which was in possession of Manmohan Singh. The application was withdrawn by the respondent on 12.04.2007 in which the matter was compromised and Manmohan Singh had vacated the shop on the ground of personal necessity. The statement recorded in that case on 12.04.2007 of the respondent land-lord and order passed by the Rent Controller on the same date have also been placed on record as Annexures R-3 and R-4. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that as per the averments made in the petition filed against Manmohan Singh, shop No. 1 was required for the personal use and occupation of his married son Ganesh Pahwa who wanted to run the business of hosiery. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that as per the averments made in the petition filed against Manmohan Singh, shop No. 1 was required for the personal use and occupation of his married son Ganesh Pahwa who wanted to run the business of hosiery. The specific averment made in this regard in the Rent Application No. 19 filed against Manmohan Singh has also been pointed out which reads as under:- "That the petitioner requires the said shop along with another shop No. 4 bonafide for the personal use and occupation of his son married Ganesh Pahwa who is running hosiery business on the first floor/upper portion of the property. The Haibowal area is fast developing centre of the city and is potential one. The petitioner requires the shop in dispute and shop No. 4 for the needs of his son who intends to open show room for hosiery goods in the said shop and shop No. 4 in order to supplement his income. The petitioner has four shops in the building. The rent petition for vacation of two shops for the personal use by the petitioner is filed against the tenant Inderjit Singh." 9. Thus, it is submitted that nothing has been concealed from this Court as two shops No. 1 and 4 were required for the personal use and occupation of his son and shops No. 2 and 3 for himself. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Gurbaj Singh v. Parshotam Singh and others, 2011 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 518 : 2011 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 349 : 2011 (3) PLR 653 to contend that the landlord has to plead all the mandatory ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act in the eviction petition even if the premises is required by the landlord for use and occupation of his son. He has also referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Vishal Garg v. Kanwaljit Kaur and others, 2011 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 389 to contend that the crucial date for deciding the bona fide requirement is not only the date of application for eviction but those subsequent events could also be taken into consideration which completely eclipse the requirement of landlord. He has further relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Kashetariya Punjab Khadi Mandal, Kharar v. Prem Kumar and others, 2012 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 516 : 2012(4) PLR 392 to contend that the expression "has not vacated" also to include a situation of a property that is "got vacated" by the landlord and if the landlord has two other tenants after the formation of Kashetariya Mandal and they vacated the portions of the property that fell vacant and they had been rented out afresh to tenants, then the non-disclosure of that event must be taken as crucial. 11. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, 2001 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 221 to contend that crucial date for deciding bona fide requirement of the landlord is the date of the application. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 12. Basically the case has been argued by the petitioner on the strength of the subsequent event of vacation of shop No. 4 by Ramesh Chander after his eviction was ordered by the learned Rent Controller. The case of the petitioner is that once the shop is available with the respondent-landlord, his requirement of personal use and occupation is over and his averment that he had no other commercial building except the shop in dispute has to be treated as a false statement and on that ground alone, the rent petition should have been dismissed. 13. In the eviction petition filed against the petitioner, the respondent-landlord has categorically averred that he requires shops No. 2 and 3 for his personal use and occupation though he has 4 shops in the said building. It is alleged that he wanted to start his own business of Miniari/Gift Items in the shops being suitable in the area for the said purpose. He has also averred that the other two shops are required for the need of his son Ganesh Pahwa who wanted to open the hosiery showroom and except for these 4 shops, neither he owned and possessed any shop or commercial premises nor vacated the same in the municipal limits, Ludhiana after the commencement of the Act. 14. He has also averred that the other two shops are required for the need of his son Ganesh Pahwa who wanted to open the hosiery showroom and except for these 4 shops, neither he owned and possessed any shop or commercial premises nor vacated the same in the municipal limits, Ludhiana after the commencement of the Act. 14. In the written statement filed by the petitioner-tenant on 14.03.2007, he has otherwise denied that the two shops, as projected by the landlord, are required for the need of his son Ganesh Pahwa for opening of a hosiery showroom, rather it was alleged that he had got vacated shop No. 1 from Manmohan Singh and is in possession thereof. It is a matter of record that shop occupied by Manmohan Singh was vacated by an order dated 12.04.2007. However, in any case, the fact remains that it has been a consistent stand of the landlord that shops No. 1 and 4 in possession of Ramesh Chander and Manmohan Singh were required for the personal use and occupation of his son Ganesh Pahwa, whereas shops No. 2 and 3, which have been made a single shop by the petitioner by removing intervening wall, was required by the respondent-landlord for his own personal use and occupation in which he wanted to start the business of Miniari/Gift Items. Thus, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner of concealment of the fact by the respondent that he was in possession of the premises in the same locality is inconsequential. 15. In Vishal Garg's case (supra), this Court has also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gaya Prasad's case (supra) and held that the Court, at any stage, can take into consideration the subsequent events and mould the relief, but as argued by learned counsel for the respondent, the eviction of Ramesh Chander projected as a subsequent event by the tenant cannot be taken against him because of the very fact that the respondent had never wanted the shop occupied by Ramesh Chander and another shop vacated by Manmohan Singh for himself as the same were required for the personal use and occupation of his son Ganesh Pahwa for staring his own business of hosiery. 16. 16. The matter would have been altogether different if the shop vacated by Ramesh Chander was in occupation of the respondent-landlord, then the judgment in Vishal Garg's case (supra) would have been handy, but as the facts are altogether different, the said judgment is of no avail to the case of the petitioner. There is another aspect of the matter, which was rather argued half-heartedly by learned counsel for petitioner, with regard to the finding recorded by the Rent Controller on issue No. 2 that the petitioner is responsible for material impairment of the value and utility of the building. The finding recorded by both the Courts below could not be shattered by learned counsel for the petitioner and in view thereof, the same is hereby upheld. Thus, the cumulative effect of the entire discussion is that there is no error committed by the learned Courts below in passing the order of eviction against the petitioner and hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.