Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 377 (PNJ)

Nachhatar Singh v. Rajesh Kumar

2014-02-17

SABINA

body2014
Judgment Sabina, J. Krishan Lal (since deceased) had filed the ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question on the grounds of personal necessity and arrears of rent. In reply filed by the petitioner, relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied. It was averred that the shop in question was in possession of the petitioner for the last 15/16 years after he had constructed the same on the vacant land owned by the Municipal Council. Suit had been filed by the petitioner against the State of Punjab including the Municipal Council, Nabha for purchase of property in question. Petitioner was carrying on his business in the premises in question. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:- 1. Whether the applicant is owner of the shop in question ? OPP 2. Whether the shop in question was rented out to the respondent @ Rs. 350/- per month ? OPA 3. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent from 1.4.99 onward? OPA 4. Whether the applicant requires this shop for his personal use and occupation ? OPA 5. Whether the shop in question has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation ? OPA 6. Whether the shop in question is lying closed since the beginning of the year 1999 without any reasonable excuse, if so, its effect ? OPP 7. Whether the application is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 8. Whether the applicant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file this application ? OPR 9. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this application? OPR 10. Relief. Vide order dated 15.4.2010, Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition. The said order was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.4.2011. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-tenant. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. In the present case, petitioner had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In fact, the shop in question was owned by Municipal Council, Nabha. The adjoining shop was owned by Krishan Lal (since deceased) and in the said shop, Rajesh Kumar-respondent, son of Krishan Lal (since deceased), was running his business. In the present case, petitioner had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In fact, the shop in question was owned by Municipal Council, Nabha. The adjoining shop was owned by Krishan Lal (since deceased) and in the said shop, Rajesh Kumar-respondent, son of Krishan Lal (since deceased), was running his business. Krishan Lal took the adjoining shop on lease from Municipal Council, Nabha and constructed the shop. Respondent proved on record sale deed Ex. A-1 vide which the property in question had been allotted to him by the Municipal Council. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he has placed reliance on the judgment and decree dated 25.2.2004. A perusal of Ex. R-1 reveals that the petitioner had filed suit for mandatory injunction directing the Municipal Council to accept sale consideration from him qua the shop in question. However, the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed and it was held that Krishan Kumar was not in possession of the property in question, therefore, it could not be sold to him. The judgment Ex. R-1 is dated 25.2.2004 whereas the sale deed was executed in favour of Krishan Lal on 12.9.2000. So far as the judgment/decree Ex. R-1/R-2 are concerned, they are not binding on the respondent as he was not a party to the said litigation. Moreover, the sale deed Ex. A-1 was not challenged by the petitioner in his suit nor respondent was made a party. Moreover, before passing of the said judgment/decree the sale deed qua the property in question had already been executed in favour of Krishan Lal. A perusal of Ex. P-22 reveals that respondent had been paying the lease money to the Municipal Council qua the property in question from the year 1978 to 2001. Hence, the Courts below rightly held that the respondent was owner of the property in question. In the present case, Krishan Lal had sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he required the premises in question to enable his son Rajesh Kumar to run his business in the said premises. During the pendency of the ejectment petition, Krishan Lal died and Rajesh Kumar, his son, was impleaded as the legal representative of the landlord. Since the landlord required the premises in question for his son Rajesh Kumar, the ground of ejectment for personal necessity subsisted with the legal representative. During the pendency of the ejectment petition, Krishan Lal died and Rajesh Kumar, his son, was impleaded as the legal representative of the landlord. Since the landlord required the premises in question for his son Rajesh Kumar, the ground of ejectment for personal necessity subsisted with the legal representative. The need of the landlord that he required the premises in question to enable his son Rajesh Kumar to expand his business, was not liable to be doubted. It is a settled proposition of law that the landlord is the best judge qua his needs. Hence, the Courts below rightly ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. Landlord had also sought the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the premises in question had been rendered unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In this regard, respondent examined building expert who appeared in the witness box as AW-7. As per the report of the expert, the flooring of the building was not in a workable condition. Balas supporting the roof had started decaying. The walls had developed cracks which could result in falling of the roof. The expert gave the opinion that the building in question had been rendered unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Petitioner had failed to rebut the said evidence of the expert. Hence, the Courts below rightly held that the building in question had been rendered unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The Courts below had also came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to occupy the shop in question as it was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly ordered the ejectment of the petitioner. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.