Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1250 (PNJ)

Vijay Luxmi v. Hukum Chand

2023-03-29

NIDHI GUPTA

body2023
JUDGMENT Nidhi Gupta, J. Present Revision Petition has been filed by the landlord seeking setting aside of judgment dated 02.03.2015 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Ambala, whereby order dated 24.12.2012 passed by learned Rent Controller, Ambala allowing ejectment petition filed by the petitioner has been set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-landlord had filed an ejectment petition (Annexure P1) under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the respondent/tenant for his ejectment from the "entire first floor, and tin shed (barsati) of second floor, of House No.1520/1, Tota Mandi, Kacha Bazar, Ambala Cantt." (hereinafter referred to as "the demised premises"). The petitioner filed said ejectment petition inter alia, on the ground that she required the demised premises for her personal use and occupation/bona fide personal necessity, and on ground of non-payment of rent. The respondent duly appeared before the learned Rent Controller and filed written statement dated 15.09.2009 (Annexure P2), to which the petitioner filed replication dated 01.10.2009 (Annexure P3). 3. Vide order dated 24.12.2012, learned Rent Controller had allowed the ejectment petition of the petitioner, against which the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala. Vide impugned judgment dated 02.03.2015, learned Appellate Authority, Ambala allowed respondent's appeal. Hence, present Revision Petition. 4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner: i) that it was the pleaded case of the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller that after her retirement on 30.09.2007 from service in the Punjab Government, she along with her family members, consisting of her son and daughter, is living at Mohali. However, she and her family members did not feel at home in Mohali and thus, wanted to shift to their native house at Ambala Cantt. where her other relatives i.e. sister-in-law (nanad), Jeth and Jethani are also living; ii) that petitioner's husband had also expired on 04.12.2009 and therefore, she along with her children wanted to shift to Ambala as she was lonely in Mohali; iii) that ground floor of the building in question forming part of House no. 1520, consisted of 4 rooms, which had been in the occupation of other tenants. The petitioner had filed separate ejectment petitions against the tenants of these four rooms, on similar grounds of bona fide personal necessity after retirement. 1520, consisted of 4 rooms, which had been in the occupation of other tenants. The petitioner had filed separate ejectment petitions against the tenants of these four rooms, on similar grounds of bona fide personal necessity after retirement. All the above said ejectment petitions had been allowed by learned Rent Controller and even appeals there-against filed by tenants were dismissed by learned Appellate Authority. Even Revision Petitions filed by said tenants have been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2015 passed in Civil Revision No.3262 of 2015, and order dated 19.10.2015 passed in Civil Revision No.4943 of 2015. These orders have attained finality as the same were not challenged by the tenants therein; iv) that it is only in the present case that the learned Appellant Authority has reversed the well-reasoned and cogent findings returned by learned Rent Controller without appreciating the evidence on record. It is submitted that the said impugned judgment is contrary to the established legal position in this regard as, the Learned Appellate Authority has set aside the order passed by learned Rent Controller on the ground that the house in which the petitioner is currently residing in Mohali is bigger than the demised premises and no proper facility is available in the demised premises. Learned Appellate Authority also held that, other relatives of the petitioner are living in Chandigarh and therefore, her bona fide personal necessity is not made out; v) it is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh (SC) Law Finder Doc ID # 2083 has held that landlord is the best judge of his/her requirements; vi) It is also not disputed that "the petitioner does not own and is not occupying any other residential building in her name in the urban area of Ambala Sadar, Ambala Cantt., except the house in dispute, and further she has not vacated any such residential building in the urban area of Ambala Sadar Ambala Cantt without sufficient cause after the commencement of 1949 Act." It is submitted that accordingly, all the requirements under the Act are complied with. 5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent/tenant submits: i) that learned Appellate Authority has given valid reasons for allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. 5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent/tenant submits: i) that learned Appellate Authority has given valid reasons for allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. The only ground on which the petitioner was seeking eviction of the respondent was that Ambala was her native place and she wanted to move there with her family to live with her other relatives living in Ambala. It is submitted that this averment on part of the petitioner is contrary to the record which evidences that parents and brother of the petitioner are living in Chandigarh. Also, the petitioner had done her schooling and graduation in Chandigarh and has lived throughout her life in Chandigarh itself and, she did not have a single blood relative in Ambala, and therefore, her personal necessity is not made out; ii) that the house in which the petitioner is currently living in Mohali is constructed in 200 square yards whereas the demised premises to which the petitioner wanted to move is constructed in 50 square yards. The petitioner has never been to Ambala and therefore, her bona fide requirement is not made out. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent tenant relies upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander (SC); and of this Court in Kasturi Lal Handa v. Bhajan Singh (P&H); Hans Raj Malik v. Om Parkash (P&H) ; Jagdish Rai Chandna v. Swaran Dass (P&H) and Vidya Rattan Taneja v. Ram Lal Sachdeva (P&H); 6. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The learned Appellate Authority has allowed the respondent's appeal, and rejected the petitioner's claim for the following reasons as recorded in the impugned order:- "13...Perusal of the pleadings on file shows that as per petitioner she has retired from Punjab Government service in the year 2007 and earlier she was residing with her family members at Mohali where they do not feel at home because of non-availability of their close and known relatives and therefore, the petitioner intends to shift to her native house at Ambala Cantt. With her family members. These averments in the petitioner however, are not supported by the evidence of the petitioner. With her family members. These averments in the petitioner however, are not supported by the evidence of the petitioner. A perusal of the evidence that came on file and the cross-examination of the petitioner goes to show that it is admitted by her that the house at Mohali is a double storey house constructed in 200 Sq. Yards in the year 2003 and in well established area with 4 bed rooms and clean surroundings and good sewerage system. That the said house is in approved colony, whereas the house under tenancy is in a small street with small lane surrounding it and constructed in 50 Sq. Yards and measuring 24'x20'. The said house is more than 50 years old. Thus in comparison to the house where the petitioner is residing the house under tenancy is very small house with no proper facility available. With regard to the contention of petitioner about her relatives and near and dears living near the house under tenancy, her cross-examination is, however, otherwise. In her cross-examination the petitioner has stated that her parents are residing in Chandigarh. Her brothers, sisters and other relatives are also residing in Chandigarh and they visit each other houses. This would mean that even the close relatives and family members of the petitioners are residing near her house in Mohali and not near the house under tenancy. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held in Vidya Rattan Taneja and Another v. Ram Lal Sachdeva and another, 2008(2) RCR 516, that "Landlords well settled at Delhi, Chandigarh and Gurgaon - Seeking eviction of tenant from a house at Sonepat - Application dismissed - Need was not bona fide but was merely a desire - It cannot be disputed that landlord is best judgment of his requirement, but in the instant case, need set up was not bona fide, but mere desire."" 9. While allowing the respondent's appeal, learned Appellate Authority has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Vidya Rattan Taneja (supra), which, in my view, is misplaced as the same is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. While allowing the respondent's appeal, learned Appellate Authority has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Vidya Rattan Taneja (supra), which, in my view, is misplaced as the same is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case "..No reasons were forthcoming as to what was the necessity to shift to Sonepat..."; Whereas, in the present case, the petitioner has given cogent reasons for moving to Ambala, inasmuch as: i) that the petitioner had retired from service of Punjab Government in the year 2007. The demised premises were let out to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs.55/-. The petitioner requires the demised premises for her own personal use and occupation as she wants to move to Ambala where her Jeth, Jethani and Nanad are living; ii) that the petitioner wants to move into the four rooms on the ground floor of the House No.1520 which have been vacated by the tenants who were occupying the said premises in pursuance to orders passed by this Court; whereas the demised premises currently in the occupation of the respondent will be occupied by her children who are of marriageable age. 10. Thus, in the present case, unlike the relied upon case of Vidya Rattan Taneja (supra), the landlord has given substantial reasons to show the need to shift to the demised premises. 11. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Atma S. Berar (supra), while making a reference to a three-Judge Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan 1996 (5) SCC 353 , has held as follows: "15. ...."the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirements. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own". The High Court need not be solicitous and venture in suggesting what would be more appropriate for the landlord to do. "That was the look out of the appellant and not of the High Court. The gratuitous advice given by the High Court was uncalled for....There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property."...." 12. In my view, in the present case, personal necessity of the petitioner has been amply established on record. "That was the look out of the appellant and not of the High Court. The gratuitous advice given by the High Court was uncalled for....There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property."...." 12. In my view, in the present case, personal necessity of the petitioner has been amply established on record. From the case law as cited above, it is evident that it is not open for the tenant or even for the Courts to dictate to the landlord as to what his/her requirements are and what would constitute better and more suitable accommodation for him/her. In the present case, it has been the consistent case of the petitioner that in the evening of her life, she wants to be surrounded by her near and dear ones. It is with this explicit purpose that the petitioner has been at pains to get House No.1520 of which the demised premises is a part, vacated. It is not disputed that eviction petitions filed by the petitioner in respect of four rooms on ground floor, have been allowed up to this Court and the same have attained finality. 13. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (SC) Law Finder Doc ID # 15701 has held as follows:- "B. Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(e) - bonafide requirement - Suit for eviction - Landlord showed a prima facie case - Rent Controller should proceed with presumption that requirement is bonafide. C. Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(e) - bonafide requirement - Suit for eviction - It is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of tenanted premises." A widow wants to shift her residence from Calcutta to New Delhi to occupy her own building which is presently in the possession of her tenant-M/s United India Insurance Company Limited. Though she got an order of eviction from the Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short "the Act"), a single judge of the Delhi High Court non-suited her by reversing the order. She has sought for special leave to appeal against the said decision of the High Court. Leave granted. 13. Though she got an order of eviction from the Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short "the Act"), a single judge of the Delhi High Court non-suited her by reversing the order. She has sought for special leave to appeal against the said decision of the High Court. Leave granted. 13. If the landlord has another residential accommodation which is reasonably suitable, he is not permitted to avail himself of the benefit afforded in the ground set out in the clause. Learned Single Judge of the High Court has noted that the landlord in this case has "admitted in her deposition that the hose in Calcutta was a 3-bedroom house with drawing/dining room and one of the bedrooms was used by her and other by her son with his wife, and another bedroom was kept for her daughter who used to come and stay". This was one of the reasons which persuaded the learned Single Judge to interfere with the order of eviction. To deprive a landlord of the benefit of the ground mentioned in Section 14(1)(e) an account of availability of alternate residential accommodation, it is not enough that such alternative accommodation is in a far different State. Such accommodation must be available in the same city or town, or at least within reasonable proximity thereof if it is outside the limits of the city. The said limb of clause (e) cannot be interpreted as to mean that if landlord has another house anywhere in the world he cannot seek recovery of possession of his building under clause (e). High Court therefore went wrong in observing that since the landlord has possession of another flat at Calcutta she is disentitled to seek recovery of possession of the tenanted premises situated at Delhi. 14. The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bonafide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms of the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself." 14. Even this Court in similar circumstances has held in case of Smt. Dropati Devi v. Bipan Kumar (P&H) Law Finder Doc ID # 25273 that:- "A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 13(3) (a)(v) - bonafide requirement - Landlord having accommodation at Delhi but wanted to live at Sonepat which was his native place - Desire of landlord to shift to his native place cannot be questioned in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence. 9. It was further submitted that the landlord does not bonafide need the demised premises for his personal use and occupation and his other family members, as he has other accommodation in Delhi. Sonepat is the native place where the landlord initially resided before joining Air Force. His desire to shift to his native place cannot be questioned in the absence of any legal, cogent or reliable evidence that the landlord does not possess any other suitable accommodation in Sonepat where he intends to reside. He is thus legally entitled to an order of eviction against the tenant under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. I find support in my view from the authority of this Court in Kapil Dev Gupta v. Ram Kishan, 1988(1) RCR 473 : (1988) 1 PLR 606." 15. In view of the facts and legal position as noticed above, I allow the present Revision Petition and set aside impugned order dated 02.03.2015 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Ambala. 16. At this stage it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent is an 80-year-old man who lives alone in the demised premises as his wife had died 10 years ago, and his son had died recently, and he may be given some time to vacate the demised premises. 16. At this stage it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent is an 80-year-old man who lives alone in the demised premises as his wife had died 10 years ago, and his son had died recently, and he may be given some time to vacate the demised premises. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection if some reasonable time is granted to the respondent to vacate the demised premises. 17. Keeping in view the statements made by learned counsel, this revision petition is accordingly, disposed of with the following terms:- (i) The respondent/tenant shall file an undertaking before the Rent Controller to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the petitioner/landlord within one-and-a-half year i.e. 18 months by 29.09.2024; (ii) The respondent shall be liable to pay all the arrears of rent, if any due, within one month. He shall also be liable to deposit advance rent by 7th of each calender month, either before the Rent Controller or in the bank account of the petitioner/landlord; (iii) The respondent/tenant shall be liable to file an undertaking to this effect before the Rent Controller within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order; (iv) He would also file an affidavit that he shall not transfer the possession of the tenanted premises to someone else; (v) In case of default, petitioner-landlord can take action in accordance with law. 18. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.