Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1909 (PNJ)

Vimal Jindal v. Surender Singh Dhillon

2021-12-10

ANIL KSHETARPAL

body2021
Judgment Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J. :-By this order CR-2095-2016 and CR-2096-2016, arisingbetween the same parties shall stand disposed of. 2.After having heard the learned counsel representing the parties ata sufficient length, this Court is of the considered view that the matter isrequired to be remitted to the Appellate Authority, to consider the effect ofthe notice served by one of the landlords calling upon the tenant, to increasethe rent. In the considered opinion of the Court, neither the learned RentController nor the Appellate Authority has examined the issue in properperspective. 3.Some peculiar facts are required to be noticed. 4.The respondents leased two separate premises to the petitioner,for a period of 10 years. In the first petition, the tenanted premises is ½portion of the ground floor of SCO No.3015-3016, Sector 22D, Chandigarh,whereas, in the second petition, the tenanted premises is a complete basementof SCO No.3015-3016, Sector 22D, Chandigarh. The period of lease had toexpire on 30.04.2010. The landlord sent a notice to the tenant on 20.01.2010,with a request to vacate the tenanted premises. Subsequently, on 19.02.2010,one of the landlords sent another notice calling upon the tenant to discuss thematter with his partners and let the landlords know if their offer for thepayment of prevailing market rent is acceptable to the tenant and his partnersor not. The eviction petition was filed on 25.05.2010, by the landlords. 5.The Appellate Authority has examined the aforesaid aspect inthe following manner:- 24. So far the as contention of learned for the appellantcounsel that the respondents- landlords were forcing himto increase the rent and when the negotiations has notfinalized, then they filed the rent petition, which reflectsthat the bonafide requirement is merely a fanciful wish.But the contention of learned counsel for the appellant ismisconceived, merely because, the respondents werenegotiating with the appellant for enhancement of rent,cannot be of any consequences., The appellant placeddocument Ex.R-2 on Record. This document is notsufficient to brushed aside the stand of the respondents.Moreover, as per clause 1 of the lease deed in question, ithas been specifically provided that, if after the period often years, both the parties agreed to continue the lease,they shall settle the stand of the respondents. Moreover,as per clause 1 of the lease deed in question. This document is notsufficient to brushed aside the stand of the respondents.Moreover, as per clause 1 of the lease deed in question, ithas been specifically provided that, if after the period often years, both the parties agreed to continue the lease,they shall settle the stand of the respondents. Moreover,as per clause 1 of the lease deed in question. It has beenspecifically provided that, if after the period often years,both the fresh terms and conditions in line with marketrate of that time and shall get fresh lease deed executedand registered, otherwise, tenancy shall be deemed tohave been terminated. A bare perusal of the clause 1 ofthe Lease Deed goes to show that fresh lease deed was tobe executed on the basis of mutually settled terms andconditions between the parties, per the prevailing Since, itagreed to between the was market rent. parties, at thetime of entering into the lease deed, that at the expiry oftenancy period, fresh lease deed would be entered into atthe rate of prevailing market rent, hence, the appellantcannot object to the notice Ex.R-2, whereby, it was askedeither to increase the rent as per prevailing market rentafter doing discussion with their own property dealer orto vacate the premises at the expiry of the period oftenancy. So, mere asking the appellant to increase therent, is no ground to decline the bonafide need of therespondents. The observation made in Punjab NationalBank’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts ofpresent case, wherein, it has been held that negotiationsfor enhancement of rent is of no consequence, as held incase Baldev Singh Bajwa versus Munish Saini, AIR 2006Supreme Court 59.” 6.On the one hand, the learned counsel representing the landlordcontends that the landlords were always in need of their premises, for a bonafide necessity. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the tenant hascontended that issuance of notice, dated 19.02.2010, is admitted and proved.The rent petition has been filed only because the tenant did not agree to theunreasonable demands of the landlords. Hence, the eviction petition was aresult of his denial for the excess payment of the rent to the landlords. 7.In the considered opinion of this Court, it would not beappropriate to record the detailed reasons because the matter is beingremitted to the Appellate Authority for fresh decision, elaborately made, onthe grounds raised. Hence, the eviction petition was aresult of his denial for the excess payment of the rent to the landlords. 7.In the considered opinion of this Court, it would not beappropriate to record the detailed reasons because the matter is beingremitted to the Appellate Authority for fresh decision, elaborately made, onthe grounds raised. 8.In the facts of the present case, it was expected from theAuthorities to examine the issue of bona fide necessity, in the context ofnotice, dated 19.02.2010. There may be cases where the necessity may havearisen subsequently. There can be various other reasons for bona fidenecessity of the landlord. However, the Authorities were required to examinethe issue elaborately. It is evident from the reading of the order passed by theAppellate Authority that the Court has failed to consider the matter asrequired by law. No doubt, on the expiry of the lease deed, a fresh lease wasrequired to be executed, however, the notice dated 19.02.2010, was notissued only for this purpose. 9.Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the judgment passed by theAppellate Authority is set aside. 10.The Appellate Authority is requested to re-decide the matterwithin a period of three months, from the date of receipt of the certified copyof the order. 11.The parties through their counsel are directed to appear beforethe Appellate Authority, on 22.12.2021, at 10:00 a.m. 12.All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are alsodisposed of. 13.Needless to observe that the observations made by this Court shallnot be construed as expressions of opinion on the merits of the case and theAppellate Authority may proceed to decide the case independently.