Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1810 (PNJ)

Balwinder Singh Walia v. Anu Jain

2022-09-27

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

body2022
JUDGMENT Tribhuvan Dahiya, J. (Oral) - This revision petition has been filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'the Act') by the petitioner/tenant impugning the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 30.10.2019 (Annexure P-1), whereby the ejectment from the demised premises was ordered, and also the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 12.7.2022 (Annexure P-2), whereby his appeal against the order of ejectment was dismissed. 2. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner/ tenant is that ground of bona fide necessity of the respondent/landlady has not been established on record, therefore, the ejectment could not have been ordered. The document Ex.P-2 showing bona fide necessity cannot be said to have been proved merely because it has been exhibited. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court in International Institute of Neuro Sciences & Oncology Ltd., Chandigarh and another v. Sahibjit Singh Sandhu and others, 2017 (1) RCR (Rent) 632. 3. The respondent/landlady has pleaded that she requires the demised premises for setting up office of insurance agency, as she is insurance agent of various companies. To prove the fact she has placed on record the document, Ex.P-2, which is a certificate issued to her by the Oriental Insurance Company mentioning her ID number. 4. It has been held by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority that the respondent's need to have the demised premises is bona fide, as she is working as an insurance agent and requires the premises for setting up her office as an insurance agent. She herself has stepped into the witness box as PW-2 and reiterated the averments of the petition. Despite her cross examination at length, nothing substantial to disbelieve her bona fide need could be brought out. Besides, it is also a matter of record that the petitioner/tenant while deposing in the Court as RW-1, did not deny that the landlady was an insurance agent. No other evidence has been brought on record, nor any witness examined, to dispute the fact of the respondent being an insurance agent. Law is also well settled that landlady is the best judge of her needs, and tenant is nobody to advise her what she should do and what not. 5. These findings are well reasoned and cannot be disturbed. Law is also well settled that landlady is the best judge of her needs, and tenant is nobody to advise her what she should do and what not. 5. These findings are well reasoned and cannot be disturbed. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner passed in International Institute of Neuro Sciences case (supra) to challenge the findings, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. That was a case where objection was raised to marking of exhibit on the letter in question in the examination-in-chief of the witness. Besides, the witness therein deposed that he did not know the person and he had never seen him signing any document, nor he was conversant with his hand writing/ signatures. In these circumstances, it was held that mere production of the letter from the record will not prove its due execution particularly when marking of the document as exhibit was already objected to by the opposite counsel therein. It is, therefore, apparent that facts of the instant case are entirely different. No objection to exhibiting the certificate, Ex.P-2, was ever raised by the petitioner/tenant. Nor the contents of the document/ certificate have been disputed. A bald assertion to challenge admissibility of the document, therefore, cannot be entertained. 5. In view of the aforesaid, there is no ground to interfere with the orders impugned in the petition. 6. Dismissed. 7. In the end, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner/tenant is practising as a doctor in natural medicines in the demised premises for a long time and has an established practice there. He prays that some more time be granted to him to vacate the demised premises. 8. In the interest of justice and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has a settled practice in the premises, he is allowed time till 31st March, 2023 to vacate the premises, subject to his giving an undertaking before the Executing Court to vacate the premises by handing over possession to the respondent/landlady by the said date. 9. Since the main petition has been finally decided, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.