Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1555 (PNJ)

Gurcharan Singh v. Rita Rani

2022-08-23

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

body2022
JUDGMENT Tribhuvan Dahiya, J. (Oral) - CM No. 10292-CII of 2022 in CR No. 3342 of 2022, CM No. 10291-CII of 2022 in CR No. 3343 of 2022: 1. These are the applications for condonation of 161 days delay in refiling the present petitions. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed. Delay of 161 days in re-filing the present petitions are condoned. Main Cases: 3. By this order, two revision petitions numbered above, are being decided, as a composite judgment has been passed by the Appellate authority. The facts are being taken from CR No. 3342 of 2022. 4. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant challenging the order dated 6.10.2014 passed by the Rent Controller, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the 'Act of 1973'); and the order dated 13.11.2019, passed by the Appellate Authority. 5. The respondent/landlady filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1973 for ejectment of the petitioner/tenant from the premises consisting of ground floor of House No.25-26, Vishal Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, on the ground of bona fide personal necessity, non-payment of rent, along with other grounds. The demised premises was rented out to the petitioner/tenant on 31.1.2010 for a period of 11 months, the relationship of landlord and tenant is not under dispute. The said eviction petition was allowed by the Rent Controller and the appeal against the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by holding that the petitioner/tenant was not a good pay master because he did not pay the rent in time and the respondent/landlady was forced to file a rent petition bearing number 48 of 2011, claiming arrears of rent for a period of 3 months, which was later paid during the pendency of the petition. Again he did not pay the rent, forcing the respondent/landlady to file another rent petition bearing No. 34 of 2012 for his eviction from the demised premises. The arrears were also paid by the petitioner/tenant during pendency of the second rent petition. The creation of such circumstances, forcing the respondent/landlady to file eviction petitions, one after the other for arrears of rent, was found sufficient to hold that the petitioner/tenant was not a good pay master. 6. The arrears were also paid by the petitioner/tenant during pendency of the second rent petition. The creation of such circumstances, forcing the respondent/landlady to file eviction petitions, one after the other for arrears of rent, was found sufficient to hold that the petitioner/tenant was not a good pay master. 6. Besides, it has also been held by the Appellate authority that the petitioner/tenant created a scene of crime with the respondent/landlady by using muscle power and caused grievous injuries to her. As a result, FIR No. 210 dated 23.6.2010 under Sections 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC was registered. Although in the FIR case, petitioner/tenant was acquitted by the trial Court, one of the accused therein had been convicted, and appeal against acquittal was still pending. Therefore, the petitioner/tenant was held to be a nuisance to the occupants of the building in terms of sub clause (4) of sub section (2) of Section 13 of the Act of 1973, forcing the respondent/landlady to leave the demised premises despite being its owner. 7. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant that there was no basis with the Appellate authority to hold him to be a nuisance in the premises, since he had already been acquitted in criminal trial. Besides, the respondent/landlady herself was not staying in the demised premises, which showed the ground of personal necessity taken by her was a sham. 8. It has been established on record that on account of questionable conduct of the petitioner/tenant, an FIR under Sections 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC was registered. The respondent/landlady suffered grievous injuries in the incident. This was a ground enough for her to leave the premises to live in safety somewhere else. The very fact that she was not staying in the demised premises despite being the owner establishes that the petitioner/tenant had become a threat and nuisance to her, and no illegality has been committed by the Appellate Authority in concluding thus. Further, the petitioner/tenant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and questionable criminal behaviour by saying that the demised premises being unoccupied would establish that the landlady did not need it for bona fide personal necessity. To say the least, this is a distasteful argument and deserves outrright rejection. Further, the petitioner/tenant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and questionable criminal behaviour by saying that the demised premises being unoccupied would establish that the landlady did not need it for bona fide personal necessity. To say the least, this is a distasteful argument and deserves outrright rejection. It is only the petitioner/tenant who has driven the respondent/landlady out of the premises, and cannot be allowed to take advantage of the situation by arguing that the act shows lack of bona fide necessity of the landlady. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed. Since the main cases are decided, therefore, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.