Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajan Gopal And Ors vs Surinder Kumar on 6 December, 2022
CR 4024/2022(O&M) Page 1 of 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR 4024/2022(O&M)
Date of decision: 06.12.2022
Rajan Gopal and others
...........Petitioners
Vs.
Surinder Kumar
...........Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr.Amit Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by
Ms. Anesha Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.
Nidhi Gupta,J.
Present revision petition is filed against the orders dated
29.2.2020 passed by Rent Controller, Khanna in Rent Petition No.9/1.7.2015
whereby the rent petition filed by the respondent/landlord under Section 13 of
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act'), was allowed; and order dated 31.5.2022 whereby the appeal filed by the
petitioners/tenants against order dated 29.2.2020 has been dismissed by the
lower appellate Court.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent/landlord is owner of a
shop situated at Ward No.20 Near Triveni Mandir within the Municipal limits of
Khanna, District Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as 'the demised premises'),
RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI
2022.12.13 16:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
along with adjoining store. The shop was rented out to Kulbhushan Kumar,
father of present petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and husband of petitioner no.3 in
19951995 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-. After the death of Kulbhushan Kumar
in 2009, petitioners 1 and 2 being the sons and petitioner no.3 being the widow
of Kulbhushan Kumar, continued paying rent to the respondent @ Rs.1000/- per
month. As such, there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the
parties.
The respondent sought ejectment of the petitioners from the
demised premises on account of arrears of rent; and because the demised shop
was required by him for his bona fide urgent personal need as he wanted to start
the business of Karyana Shop, and the store in his possession was insufficient
and inadequate for starting the said business. It was further stated that the
respondent had decided to reconstruct the store and shop in such a manner as to
be able to settle his son Deepak Kumar who was currently doing a private job at
a meagre salary, and the respondent was also doing a private part-time job in a
bakery, but with rising prices it was proving difficult for them to make ends
meet. It was stated that the demised premises was located in a thickly populated
area and was suitable for starting business of a Karyana shop. It was further
stated by the respondent that he did not own any other similar shop, and had not
vacated any such building within the Municipal limits of Khanna after the
commencement of the Rent Act. It was on the basis of the above averments and
related evidence on part of the respondent, that his Rent Petition was allowed by
the ld. Rent Controller, and the said order was also upheld in appeal by the Lower
Appellate Court.
Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the authorities below
have accordingly, ordered the eviction of the petitioners from the demised
RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI
2022.12.13 16:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
premises primarily on the ground of bona fide necessity of the
respondent/landlord. It is submitted that however, this finding of the Courts
below is contrary to the evidence on record.
Ld. Sr. Counsel painstakingly and in great detail took me through the
record of the case, including the various depositions/ statements of the parties,
and other evidence, to submit that the respondent/landlord himself had admitted
in his cross-examination that he owned one shop on Malerkotla road; and his
wife had one shop; and he had sold another shop on Malerkotla Road, Khanna
just six months after purchasing the same. It is submitted that in view of this
admitted position, it was clear that the respondent had as many as three other
properties and he had sold off the same. Moreover, none of these facts were
mentioned by the respondent either in his petition, or in his affidavit, or
examination in chief, which showed his malafide, that he had withheld important
relevant information from the ld. Courts below. It is submitted that the fact that
the respondent had other properties has not been taken into consideration by the
learned Appellate Authority, and therefore, the bona fide need of the respondent
was not made out at all, and therefore, the Courts below were in error in ordering
the ejection of the petitioner from the demised premises.
It is further submitted that in contradiction to the above cross-
examination of the respondent-landlord, PW-2 Deepak Kumar son of the
landlord in his testimony claimed that the respondent landlord was in ownership
of some shops of which he had no idea. It is submitted that it was not believable
that the son of the respondent would not have any idea regarding the shops
owned by the father, and therefore, the testimony of the abovesaid witnesses was
deliberately misleading and contradictory; and the ld. Courts below have not
RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI
2022.12.13 16:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
taken into consideration the fact that the respondent/landlord had concealed
material facts.
It is further submitted that the bona fide necessity of the landlord is not
borne out even from the site plan Annexure P-1 which shows that the adjoining
store which is admittedly in the possession of the respondent is far bigger than
the shop which is rented out to the petitioners.
It is further submitted that son of the respondent/landlord Deepak is
admittedly an MBA and in a private job reported to be earning Rs.8000/- per
month and therefore too, bona fide need of respondent is not made out. No other
argument is made on behalf of the petitioners.
Heard learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has very ably and
persuasively taken me through the record to submit that no bona fide requirement
of the landlord is made out and that there is material concealment on his behalf.
However, a perusal of para 19 of the order dated 31.5.2022, passed by
the Ld. Appellate Court shows that it has been clearly recorded therein that the
respondent has sold his shop situated at Malerkotla Road, Khanna in the year
2009, and the shop owned by the wife of the respondent was also sold by her in
2011, and son of the respondent PW2 Deepak Kumar has stated in his cross-
examination that his father/ the respondent herein had sold the said shop about
15-20 years ago. Admittedly, the present Rent Petition was filed in the year
2015. Therefore, clearly at the time of filing the ejectment petition the respondent
neither occupied nor owned any other similar non-residential building within the
Municipal limits of Khanna except the store adjoining the demised premises.
Learned appellate Court has further recorded that the respondent has 'voluntarily
given the details of shops sold by him prior to the filing of this case'.
RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI
2022.12.13 16:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Accordingly, it is clear that there is no concealment on behalf of the respondent.
It is also established on record by concurrent findings of both the Rent
Controller, and the appellate Authority, that at the time of filing of the rent
petition neither the respondent nor his son were occupying any other building or
rented land in the urban area concerned for the purpose of their business.
Moreover, in my considered view it is sufficiently borne out on record
that the respondent has bona fide requirement of the demised premises inasmuch
as he wants to settle his son Deepak Kumar by opening a Karyana store by
combining the demised premises with the adjoining store which is already in his
possession. Even assuming the respondent was working in bakery with his
brother, same was on salary basis, and now he is 70 plus years in age and cannot
any longer work. And even if his son Deepak Kumar was employed elsewhere
at a salary of Rs. 8000/- per month, then with rising prices, inflation, and stated
growth of family of the respondent, the bona fide requirement of the respondent
is clearly made out. Moreover, as has been laid down in numerous judgments of
this Court, as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the landlord is the master of his
needs, and it is not for the tenant to advise him as to his needs or how to fulfil
them. The tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord as to how or in what
manner he should use or not use the premises owned by him.
Further, as per Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the 1949 Act, there are three
basic mandatory ingredients which require to be pleaded in cases of bona fide
personal necessity which are that (a) he requires it for his own occupation; (b)
the landlord is not occupying another residential building in the urban area
concerned; (c) he has not vacated such a building without any sufficient cause
after the commencement of the Act in the said urban area. In the present case as
RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI
2022.12.13 16:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
is evident from the above discussion, all the requirements under the above
provision are fulfilled.
As such, finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby
dismissed.
Application(s),if any, also stand disposed of.
(Nidhi Gupta)
Judge
06.12.2022
Joshi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI
2022.12.13 16:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
