Punjab-Haryana High Court
Puran Chand Pandey vs Savitri Jain And Anr on 9 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No. 209 of 2021(O&M)
Date of Decision: February 09 , 2021.
Puran Chand Pandey ...... PETITIONER
Versus
Smt. Savitri Jain and another ...... RESPONDENTS
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
*****
LISA GILL, J.
This matter is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing
due to outbreak of the pandemic, COVID-19.
Petitioner-tenant has filed this revision petition being aggrieved of
his ejectment, ordered by the learned Rent Controller, Narnaul vide order dated
19.05.2016 which stands upheld by the learned Appellate Authority, Narnaul vide
order dated 09.01.2020.
Respondent No.1-Savitri Jain widow of Ramesh Chand Jain
preferred a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, the 'Act') seeking ejectment of the petitioner from
the shop in question as described in the petition, on the ground of non-payment of
rent, subletting, bonafide personal necessity and the premises being unfit and
1 of 7
CR No.209 of 2021(O&M) [2]
unsafe for human habitation and business. It is pleaded that the shop in question
was taken on rent in the year 1963 by the predecessor-in-interest of the present
petitioner from the initial owner, Smt. Ram Bai on a rent of Rs.50/- per month.
Rent note was also executed on 04.05.1984 with the term of tenancy being twelve
months. Details of how respondent No.1 became the absolute owner and
landlady of the property in question were described. Same are not detailed in this
order as no dispute has been raised regarding relationship of landlady and tenant
by the present petitioner. Petition was resisted by the petitioner-tenant as well as
respondent No.2, his son. Joint written statement was filed by them and
averments in the petition regarding the grounds for ejectment were denied.
Learned Rent Controller allowed the petition on the ground of
personal bonafide necessity of the landlady, inasmuch as premises were held to be
required for use and occupation by landlady's widow daughter-in-law, another
son and daughter-in-law. It was held that present petitioner had sublet the
premises to his son as it came on record that the petitioner had purchased a three-
storey building and business was being carried on in the tenanted premises by the
petitioner's son. Learned Rent Controller further held that the tenanted shop had
become unsafe and unfit for human habitation on the basis of evidence led by the
landlady including the photographs of the disputed property. Ejectment of the
petitioner was hence ordered. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was also
dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Narnaul.
Aggrieved therefrom, present petition has been filed by the
petitioner-tenant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that rent in
2 of 7
CR No.209 of 2021(O&M) [3]
question has been regularly paid and as it is the petitioner's own son who is
running the business in the demised premises, it cannot be said that premises have
been sublet. The petitioner himself, it is submitted, has become unwell and
physically disabled, therefore, the petitioner's son was running the business in the
disputed premises. Thus, it cannot be said that the premises stood sublet.
Furthermore, question of personal bonafide necessity of the landlady did not
arise. It is submitted that the landlady's daughters-in-law and son did not even
testify before the learned Rent Controller to prove the necessity. It is further
submitted that one of the daughter-in-law and son of the landlady wish to carry on
their profession as an Advocate and use the premises for consultation and library,
which is highly improbable as there is no question of a lawyer seeking to carry on
his profession from a shop. It is further submitted that the landlady has seven
other shops in a very busy market place where her son and daughters-in-law can
very well carry on their business. Learned counsel further submits that in case the
premises are dilapidated and unfit for human habitation, there is no question of
the landlady putting it to use in any manner. It is further submitted that evidence
of the building expert examined by the petitioner has been wrongly ignored by
both the learned courts below. It is thus prayed that the present revision petition
be allowed and impugned judgments dated 19.05.2016 and 09.01.2020 passed by
the learned Rent Controller, Narnaul and learned Appellate Authority, Narnaul,
respectively, be set aside, consequently dismissing petition under Section 13 of
the Act filed by the landlady.
I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and have gone through the
file with his assistance.
3 of 7
CR No.209 of 2021(O&M) [4]
There is no dispute regarding the demised premises i.e., a shop as
described in the petition being taken on rent at the rate of Rs.50/- per month in the
year 1963 by the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner from the
predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.1-landlady. As the rent provisionally
assessed by the learned Rent Controller was paid, the ground of non-payment of
rent has been rightly stated to be not available to the landlady. Respondent-
landlady specifically pleaded and successfully proved the ground of personal
bonafide necessity. It is her specific case that she required the demised premises
for use and occupation by one of her daughter-in-law, who is a widow, for
running the business of cosmetic and general store, besides her son, Mahabir and
daughter-in-law, Monika being Advocates also requiring the premises to carry on
their profession and use the premises for consultation office and library.
Respondent-landlady duly testified before the learned Rent Controller as PW6
and clearly revealed her personal bonafide necessity. Petitioner could not extract
anything in his favour from her cross-examination. Merely because her son and
daughters-in-law did not testify, does not in any manner detract from her case.
Equally untenable is the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner that the
landlady's son and daughter-in-law are not practicing Advocates and as they did
not have a flourishing practice, they did not require the premises. Such a
contention is noticed only to be rejected. It would indeed be a paradox to hold
that for establishing a bonafide necessity to use the premises, a flourishing
practice would first have to be proved. It is a matter of record that sufficient
evidence has been led in the form of power of attorneys etc. in various cases,
(ExPA to Ex.PD), to show that son and daughter-in-law of the landlady were
4 of 7
CR No.209 of 2021(O&M) [5]
practicing advocates. One of her daughter-in-law is admittedly a widow.
Similarly, argument that respondent-landlady is in possession of a
number of other shops, is not substantiated by any evidence on record. Learned
counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any such evidence on record and
in any case, the petitioner cannot dictate the landlady in this respect. Furthermore,
it is a matter of record that the petitioner while deposing as RW1 before the
learned Rent Controller has clearly admitted that he is the owner of a three-storey
building in one Ganpati Plaza. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage,
submits that though sale-deed of the said three-storey building is admittedly in
favour of the petitioner, owner of the said building is, in fact, the petitioner's son,
therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has any other suitable premises to
carry on business. The stand taken by the petitioner is clearly paradoxical and
untenable. This is so for the reason that on the one hand, it is sought to be argued
that the petitioner has become physically handicapped (though there is no
evidence on record in this respect) and is unable to carry on his business,
therefore, his son is carrying on business at the demised premises and on the other
hand, it is sought to be urged that the petitioner's son is in possession of three
storey building and petitioner is carrying on his business at the demised premises
and has no other suitable premises. In this respect both the learned courts below
have rightly referred to the testimony of PW5 Harnarayan, Process Server, who
effected service on the petitioner's son who was found present at the demised
shop. Petitioner in his testimony, further admitted that no part of the three-storey
premises has been given on rent to anybody and he is in possession of all the
three floors. It is apparent that the petitioner is in possession of a three-storey
5 of 7
CR No.209 of 2021(O&M) [6]
building and has adjusted his son in the demised premises.
Both the learned courts below have rightly relied upon evidence of
the building expert, PW4 P.R.Gupta, who has reported the demised shop to be a
C-Class building not less than 100-110 years old and opined it as totally unfit and
unsafe for human habitation and use. Photographs Ex.PW4/C to Ex.PW4/T have
been referred, to observe that the shop in question is dilapidated and its roof
which is constructed of wooden battens, had developed big cracks and had broken
at many places. Big cracks in the walls and opening of the joints are mentioned.
Both the learned courts below have been duly cautious and sensitive to the fact
that there is a general tendency of a private expert deposing in favour of the
person who engages them. It is in this scenario that learned Appellate Authority
has taken note of the admission of the petitioner-tenant and his son that rain water
seeps into the disputed shop besides the photographs etc. placed on record to
uphold the finding of the premises being unfit and unsafe for human habitation
and use. It is rightly observed by the learned Appellate Authority that the
landlady is not expected to wait till the building in question collapses. Learned
courts below have rendered the respective impugned judgments after proper
appreciation of the evidence on record.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 378 while delineating the scope of
revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, where two courts have returned
concurrent findings of fact, has observed that the High Court would normally not
interfere in concurrent findings of fact until and unless it is shown that there is
gross misreading of evidence or ignoring of material evidence on record which
6 of 7
CR No.209 of 2021(O&M) [7]
renders the finding of the courts below to be perverse.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any
illegality, perversity or infirmity in the impugned judgments dated 19.05.2016
and 09.01.2020 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Narnaul and learned
Appellate Authority, Narnaul, respectively, which call for interference by this
Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
No other argument has been raised.
Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.
( LISA GILL )
February 09 , 2021. JUDGE
'om'
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
