Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1394 (PNJ)

Shankar Lal v. Patiala Central Co-operative Bank

2014-10-07

BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON

body2014
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. 1. These five civil revision petitions by the tenants are directed against their eviction orders dated 28.2.2014 of the Rent Controller, Patiala under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter mentioned as the "Rent Act") affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 19.8.2014. Though grounds of non-payment of rent and of personal necessity had been taken for eviction of the tenants but ground of non-payment of rent was decided in favour of the tenants, whereas ground of personal necessity was concurrently held by both the authorities below against the tenants and in favour of the landlord-Bank. 2. The landlord is the Patiala Central Co-operative Bank, Topkhana More, Patiala and had sought eviction of the tenants, inter alia , on the ground of personal necessity, claiming, that expansion of its banking business had necessitated re-construction of the entire building after demolishing the old one where in the front portion, the shops in dispute under possession of the tenants were located. It was further explained that a big hall was to be constructed in the front so that business of the petitioner-bank is suitably expanded as the landlord-bank was finding it difficult to flourish as its only approach was from the side lane. It was, thus, explained that the building presently in occupation of the landlord was insufficient for carrying out its expanding business of banking and was no more suitable for running its business in the back portion, as the shops under possession of the tenants were located in the front portion causing hindrance to the expansion of the business. Thus, ground of personal necessity for use and occupation of the landlord was taken explaining therein that the entire building including the portion of the shops in front after demolition was to be re-constructed in the shape of a big hall. 3. The petitioners-tenants had taken all sorts of objections including denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and denial of requirement of space necessitated, by expansion of business of banking of the landlord, in the building in dispute. 4. Since facts and circumstances of all the five petitions are the same and arguments have also been advanced in all the petitions together, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. 5. For convenience and clarity, further facts are being taken from CR No. 6824 of 2014. 6. 4. Since facts and circumstances of all the five petitions are the same and arguments have also been advanced in all the petitions together, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. 5. For convenience and clarity, further facts are being taken from CR No. 6824 of 2014. 6. Plea of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties put forth by the tenants did not find favour with both the authorities below under the Rent Act. Notwithstanding the fact of tenancy of the petitioners having started under the Patiala Central Consumer Store Limited, the building (including the premises in dispute) having been purchased by the landlord-bank vide sale deed dated 3.1.1991 through liquidator Babu Singh, is not disputed. There is no denying the fact that the bank had stepped into the shoes of earlier landlord of the tenants by virtue of operation of law in terms of the Rent Act. There is further statement by tenant Shankar Lal (RW1) in his cross-examination admitting the bank to be his landlord. There is even adjudication by the civil court vide judgments Ex. R2 and Ex. R3 whereby tenant Shankar Lal, petitioner herein, was held to be a tenant under the landlord-bank. Restraining the bank against forcible dispossession of the tenant, the civil court had conceded the claim of the landlord-bank for eviction of the tenant though only in due course of law. 7. Plea of the tenant that such due course could have been only under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, is not tenable because remedy under the Rent Act as has rightly been held by both the authorities below, is not excluded even under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. Moreover, when the tenant himself had sought declaration of his status as a tenant, which relief was granted to the tenant by the civil court, there is no merit in his plea that provisions of the Rent Act do not apply. 8. Merely because resolution of the landlord-bank authorizes filing of the petitions for eviction of the tenants designating such officer by post, is no ground to hold such resolution of the Bank to be vague. 8. Merely because resolution of the landlord-bank authorizes filing of the petitions for eviction of the tenants designating such officer by post, is no ground to hold such resolution of the Bank to be vague. Competent authority for bringing eviction petitions having been identified as District Manager does not offend the institution of the eviction petitions by the District Manager, who had filed these petitions and had then been prosecuting the same. 9. Denial of conducting of banking business in the premises on the rear portion of the building, whereas shops are located in the front, was suitably negatived vide overwhelming evidence produced by the landlord-bank by proving installation of telephone and electricity connection in the name of the bank as also the fact of carrying out of the banking business proved by Smt. Pushpa Devi (AW5) and Gurdeep Singh (AW6). 10. Counsel for the petitioners-tenants referring to Subhadran Devi and others v. Sunder Dass and another, (1964)66 P.L.R. 1214 (Punjab); M/s. Sant Ram Des Raj v. Karam Chand, (1962)64 P.L.R. 758 (Punjab); Paramjit Singh v. Jagat Singh, 2014(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 103 (P&H); Hasmat Rai and another v. Raghunath Prasad, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 1711; M/s. Tandon Brothers v. State of W.B. and others, A.I.R. 2001 Supreme Court 1866; Banke Ram v. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi, 1977(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 595 (P&H) and Shashi Jain v. Tarsem Lal (Dead) and another, (2009-3)155 P.L.R. 601 has urged that need of the landlord-bank is neither genuine nor bona fide and is merely a 'wish' and there is no "honest intention' to occupy the premises presently in possession of the tenants. It is claimed that the landlord has nowhere explained that the expansion of business cannot be carried out by it in the existing building under its possession without dislodging the tenants. It is further urged that pleadings of the landlord qua the ground of personal necessity are not in consonance with the statutory requirements and since it is a question of livelihood of the tenants, efforts should have been made by the landlord-bank to contain its expansion programme within the space available with it, in the rear portion of the building. 11. 11. There are elaborate pleadings of the landlord explaining necessity of eviction of the tenants for expansion of its business as presently it is being run from a side lane entrance opening in the rear portion of the building whereas shops in dispute under possession of the tenants are located in the front confining the bank to conduct its business in the rear portion. Witnesses Gurbaz Singh (P.W. 1) and Mukesh Kumar (PW3) have very elaborately explained the necessity of eviction of the tenants for construction of big banking hall after demolishing the entire building and to have a gate in the front at the place where shops are presently located. They have also explained the necessity of the bank in getting the premises vacated as it is no more possible for it to manage its expanding business in the rear portion of the building without resorting to front portion of the building which is in possession of the tenants, which is to flourish further. 12. It is a conceded fact that shops are abutting the main road covering the frontage of the building and the bank is being run in the rear portion having entrance from the side lane. If choice was to be given to the tenants, naturally they would like the bank to continue its business from the rear portion without disturbing them but when it has been explained in detail in pleadings and evidence produced by the landlord that vacation of the shops by the tenants is imminently necessary for conducting its expanding banking business any further, the choice cannot be left to the tenants. 13. There is overwhelming evidence produced by the landlord which could not be dislodged by the tenants that there is 'genuine need' of the landlord and it is not a "mere wish' to get the premises vacated from the tenants. The landlord-bank bona fide requires the premises for carrying on its business completingly by restructuring its entrance and construction of the main banking hall by demolishing the old existing building including the shops located in the front. Merely because no site plan of the proposed construction has been produced by the landlord-bank is no ground to doubt genuineness of the need of the landlord when there is overwhelming unscathed evidence of the landlord. Moreover, both the authorities have rightly appreciated the evidence on record. Merely because no site plan of the proposed construction has been produced by the landlord-bank is no ground to doubt genuineness of the need of the landlord when there is overwhelming unscathed evidence of the landlord. Moreover, both the authorities have rightly appreciated the evidence on record. In revision petition, the evidence on record cannot be re-appreciated as no proven case of mis-appreciation or omission to consider any evidence is there. 14. There is concurrent finding of fact on the ground of personal necessity recorded by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority under the Rent Act. In view of Full Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6177 of 2004 decided on 27.8.2014 titled Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh, no tenable legal ground to interfere with the findings of the authorities below, is made out. 15. Sequelly, affirming the impugned orders passed by both the authorities below, these petitions being without any merit, are dismissed in limine. However, the petitioners-tenants are allowed sixty days' time to hand over vacant possession of the shops in dispute to the landlord-bank.