Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2598 (PNJ)

Sukhwinder Singh v. Jit Singh

2023-08-28

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

body2023
JUDGMENT Mr. Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. The revision petition is directed against the judgments of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority whereby the petition preferred by the respondents/landlords for eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the demised premises has been allowed and the appeal thereagainst has been dismissed respectively. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submitted that the respondents/landlords could not prove that their requirement was bonafide especially when they are occupying another premises and the petition had been preferred in a malafide manner solely for the purpose of evicting the petitioner who are the lawful occupants of the premises. The respondents/landlords had pleaded that they require the premises for running a restaurant but they are already running a restaurant along with a hotel which is owned by them. The respondents/landlords were also running another business in the name and style of M/s Lucky Gift House at Ghanta Ghar Chowk, Amritsar which had been concealed by them. The petitioner had placed on record the requisite documents to indicate the operation of the restaurant but the same had been erroneously discarded by the Courts below. He has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Paramjit Singh v. Jagat Singh, 2014(2) RCR (Civil) 774, Madan Lal (deceased) through his Lrs v. Hardeep Kaur, 2014(12) RCR (Civil) 485, Harbans Singh and another v. Balwinder Singh and other, 2020(2) RCR (Rent) 119, Randhir Singh Rohilla v. Rajbir, 2015(33) RCR (Civil) 112, in support of his submission that the necessity of the landlord was not bonafide. 3. Learned counsel for the caveator/respondent submitted that the respondents/landlords being the best judge of their requirement had been able to prove their bonafide by cogent evidence and this Court ought not to interfere with the findings of the fact recorded by the authorities below. 3. Learned counsel for the caveator/respondent submitted that the respondents/landlords being the best judge of their requirement had been able to prove their bonafide by cogent evidence and this Court ought not to interfere with the findings of the fact recorded by the authorities below. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, 2014 (9) SCC 78 , Daya Rani and another v. Shabbir Ahmed, 2019(2) RCR (Rent) 365, Uday Shankar Upadhyay and others v. Naveen Maheshwari, 2010(1) SCC 503 , Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh, 2003(2) SCC 3 and Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 1998(8) SCC 119 and the judgments of this Court in the cases of Varinder Singh and another v. Surinder Kaur, 2020(1) RCR (Rent) 265 and Vinod Kohli v. Keemti Lai, 2023(1) RCR (Rent) 621. 4. Heard. The demised premises which comprise a shop is stated to have been rented out to the petitioner in the year 1989 @ Rs. 250/- per month. The shop had been purchased by the respondents in the year 2000. The respondents/landlords had preferred the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the ground that they bonafide require it for operating a restaurant for the hotel which they are running in the name of Lucky Guest House. The demised premises adjoins the hotel. The respondents expressed their desire to run the restaurant along with Arvinder Singh, who is the son of respondent No. 1. He is a postgraduate and does not have any independent business. It was pleaded by them that they do not own any other place for the purpose of running restaurant and neither have they obtained eviction of any other premises within the urban area of Amritsar. 5. The respondents/landlords had also stated that they intend to set up a restaurant in the open space which is available adjacent to the guest house i.e. Lucky Guest House which is being run by them. The width of the open space available with the respondents/landlords was 11 feet and if the width of the demised premises which is 5 feet, is added then the open space of 16 feet would form the front part of the restaurant. The width of the open space available with the respondents/landlords was 11 feet and if the width of the demised premises which is 5 feet, is added then the open space of 16 feet would form the front part of the restaurant. The petitioner\tenant had contended that the restaurant is already being run by the landlords on the left side of the premises and basement of the building is available to the landlords which could also be used as a restaurant. It was also pleaded that 'Lucky Gift House' is being run by the son of respondent No.2, namely, Arvinder Singh, however, the petitioner could not lead any cogent evidence to indicate that Arvinder Singh, was running 'Lucky Gift House' as only its photograph had been placed on record without any other material indicating his ownership of the said shop. The existence of the restaurant could also not be established from the evidence on record. 6. It is, thus, manifest that the respondents/landlords had made out a case of bonafide necessity for evicting the petitioner/tenant. Even assuming they were already running a restaurant, they may need the demised premises for expansion of the restaurant. The requirement is to be seen from the stand point of the landlord and not of the tenant. The petitioner/tenant cannot dictate the landlord where to run the business. 7. It is apt to notice that this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction would be circumspect and cautious and not easily upset the findings of the Appellate Court as the evidence cannot be re-appreciated. I draw support from the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh(supra), wherein it is held that the revisional Court will not re-appreciate the findings and would only interfere if the findings are perverse or grossly erroneous and if allowed to stand, would result in gross miscarriage of justice. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity." 8. The Supreme Court re-affirmed in the case of Daya Rani and another v. Shabbir Ahmed(supra), wherein the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had ordered eviction of the tenant as the necessity of the landlord to set up jewellery business and boutique on the ground floor and first floor of the premises at Kaithal was found to be bonafide. The Supreme Court re-affirmed in the case of Daya Rani and another v. Shabbir Ahmed(supra), wherein the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had ordered eviction of the tenant as the necessity of the landlord to set up jewellery business and boutique on the ground floor and first floor of the premises at Kaithal was found to be bonafide. The High Court in revision had set aside the findings primarily on the ground that the counsel for the landlord could not satisfactorily answer the question as to whether the landlords want to shift to Kaithal as they were residing in Delhi. The Supreme Court while relying on the judgment in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh(supra), held that it was not open to the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and set aside the findings of the Appellate Authority without referring to any perversity in the findings either by the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority. 9. In the case of Uday Shankar Upadhyay and others v. Naveen Maheshwari(supra), the landlord had sought eviction from shop on the ground floor as his sons wanted to set up business. The tenant therein had pleaded that the hall on the first floor was more suitable but the Rent Controller had held that the hall on the first floor was for residential accommodation and it was not suitable place for business and the petition of the landlord was allowed. The Appellate Authority had reversed the findings by holding that the hall above the shop is suitable alternative accommodation and can be used for business and therefore, the petition did not indicate bonafide necessity for vacation of the premises. The High Court agreed with the findings of the Appellate Authority. However, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal preferred by the landlord and held that the Court cannot dictate to the landlord on which floor he should do business and it is easier for the customers to reach the ground floor. The relevant extract is reproduced hereunder:- "In our opinion, once it is not disputed that the landlord is in bona fide need of the premises, it is not for the courts to say that he should shift to the first floor or any higher floor. It is well-known that shops and businesses are usually (though not invariably) conducted on the ground floor, because the customers can reach there easily. It is well-known that shops and businesses are usually (though not invariably) conducted on the ground floor, because the customers can reach there easily. The court cannot dictate to the landlord which floor he should use for his business; that is for the landlord himself to decide. Hence, the view of the courts below that the sons of plaintiff No. 1 should do business on the first floor in the hall which is being used for residential purpose was, in our opinion, wholly arbitrary, and hence cannot be sustained." 10. Reference can also be made to the judgment of this court in the case of Varinder Singh and another v. Surinder Kaur(supra), wherein the Rent Controller had allowed the eviction of the tenant by accepting the plea of the landlady to set up business of boutique with her husband. The tenant had pleaded that the basement of the premises which was vacant could be used by the landlady. The Appellate Authority had affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. This Court also dismissed the revision petition preferred by the tenant by holding that the boutique at the ground floor would make better business preposition and the need is to be seen from the standpoint of the landlord. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "Another argument has been raised by the counsel for the petitioners that sufficient accommodation remained in possession of the respondent and if she really had personal requirement, she could have started her business in that portion, but as she did not do so, therefore the need is not bona fide. As rightly held by the Rent Controller, the petitioners cannot dictate terms to the respondent. The law is settled that need of the landlady/landlord has to be seen from the angle of the landlady/landlord and not from the view point of the tenant. Even if the respondent has alternative accommodation, even then it is for the landlady it determine the suitability of the accommodation for her requirement, which is to set up a boutique. As has come on record, the basement gets waterlogged and would not be suitable. Moreover, having a boutique on the ground floor would make better business proposition than setting up a boutique in the basement. As has come on record, the basement gets waterlogged and would not be suitable. Moreover, having a boutique on the ground floor would make better business proposition than setting up a boutique in the basement. The Appellate Authority, while rejecting the plea of the petitioners-tenants in this regard, has observed that a careful perusal of evidence of RW1 Varinder Singh shows that when he was given option, whether he could be ready to start his business in the said vacant portion of basement, after vacating the demised premises, then he categorically refused while making deposition in his cross-examination. With due respect, the authorities relied by counsel for the petitioners-tenants are distinguishable and cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case." 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Paramjit Singh v. Jagat Singh (supra), Madan Lal (deceased) through his Lrs v. Hardeep Kaur(supra), Harbans Singh and another v. Balwinder Singh and other(supra), Randhir Singh Rohilla v. Rajbir(supra). The judgments in the cases of Paramjit Singh v. Jagat Singh (supra) and Madan Lal (deceased) through his Lrs v. Hardeep Kaur(supra) would not help the case of the petitioner/tenant as in those cases, the necessity of the landlord was found to be bonafide and the petition for eviction was allowed. 12. In the case of Paramjit Singh v. Jagat Singh (supra), the Rent Controller had held that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide while the Appellate Court had held it to be a case of bonafide necessity of the landlord. This Court in revision upheld the eviction by the Appellate Court as the landlord wanted to expand his business. He was running a shoe shop adjoining the shop in question. There was a partition wall between the two premises which he wanted to remove to make his premises bigger. 13. In the case of Madan Lal (deceased) through his Lrs v. Hardeep Kaur(supra), the landlady had pleaded that she wants to run the business of readymade garments. She, while appearing in the witness box, had admitted that she could do so after vacation of the premises and she was asked as to which business she will start in the premises, she answered that she will think after the premises are vacated. She, while appearing in the witness box, had admitted that she could do so after vacation of the premises and she was asked as to which business she will start in the premises, she answered that she will think after the premises are vacated. It was held by this Court while upholding the findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that her need was bonafide as she had pleaded that her husband had taken a loan to buy a house and she wanted to financially help him to repay the same and therefore, wanted to start a business. 14. The judgments in the cases of Harbans Singh and another v. Balwinder Singh and other(supra) and Randhir Singh Rohilla v. Rajbir(supra) are distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the instant case. 15. In the case of Harbans Singh and another v. Balwinder Singh and other(supra), three shops of the landlord in the same area were vacant. The landlord had admitted that he had rented out the premises during the pendency of the petition about two months prior to recording of his statement before the Rent Controller and it was in such circumstances, it was held that his necessity was not bonafide. The factual matrix of the instant case is entirely different as there is nothing to suggest that the respondent/landlord had either taken the vacant possession of the premises or rented out the same in close proximity to the filing of the petition for eviction. 16. In the case of Randhir Singh Rohilla v. Rajbir(supra), the landlord had one vacant shop and had got few shops vacated and let out the same after the commencement of the Act. He did not plead about the vacant shop and after his admission in his cross-examination, he tried to explain that the vacant shop is not suitable for his use. It was held to be a concealment suggesting lack of bonafide. In the instant case, it has not been established that there is concealment on the part of the landlord. 17. In view of the aforenoted facts and circumstances, it is evident that the respondents/landlords have established a case of eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the demised premises on account of bonafide necessity and therefore, I am in agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. 17. In view of the aforenoted facts and circumstances, it is evident that the respondents/landlords have established a case of eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the demised premises on account of bonafide necessity and therefore, I am in agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of accordingly.