Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dayal Chand vs Yoginder Kumar on 24 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115923
2023:PHHC:115923
CR-2987-2019 (O&M) --1--
267 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-2987-2019 (O&M)
Decided on:-24.08.2023
Dayal Chand ....Petitioner..
vs.
Yoginder Kumar ....Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate,
for the respondent.
*****
HARKESH MANUJA J.
1. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to the
judgment dated 29.01.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority, Palwal,
whereby an appeal filed against the order of eviction dated 23.03.2017
passed by the learned Rent Controller, Palwal, was dismissed, thereby,
upholding the same against the petitioner-tenant.
2. In the present case, respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition
qua the tenanted premises i.e. shop ABCD, situated at Aligarh Road, inter
alia on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent; the property having
become unsafe for human habitation being 30 years old; and the same being
required for personal bonafide necessity of his two sons.
3. Upon notice, petitioner-tenant appeared and filed written
statement while denying the case set up by the respondent-landlord. It was
stated that the respondent-landlord did not approach the Court with clean
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115923
2023:PHHC:115923
CR-2987-2019 (O&M) --2--
hands as there was no bonafide necessity of the landlord and it was mere his
wish and desire to get the shop in question vacated and let it out the same to
some other person for enhanced rent, besides it, he was having several other
shops adjoining the shop in dispute.
4. The learned Rent Controller vide its judgment dated 23.03.2017,
allowed the eviction petition filed by respondent-landlord on the ground of
personal necessity.
5. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner-tenant filed first appeal, which
was dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the Appellate
Authority, Palwal.
6. Impugning the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the
petitioner-tenant submits that the bonafide necessity for the settlement of
respondent's sons was not made out as there was a shop named as 'Aavesh
Electricals' which means that his elder son was engaged in business or some
work. Besides it, there were other shops of the respondent, which were lying
vacant in the very vicinity of the demised premises, thus, the eviction
petition was liable to be dismissed.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has
supported the judgments passed by the Courts below while submitting that
the same are absolutely in accordance with the legal proposition of law
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and thus,
warrant no interference.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
paper book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf
of the petitioner-tenant.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115923
2023:PHHC:115923
CR-2987-2019 (O&M) --3--
9. In the present case, respondent-landlord has sufficiently proved
the bonafide need of his two sons, aged 24 and 21 years, respectively, being
Science Graduate and Commerce Graduate. Even one of the sons, namely,
Aavesh has appeared as PW-6 and despite a lengthy cross-examination
conducted upon him, petitioner-tenant has not been able to impeach his
deposition. Nothing has come out on record to show that either of the two
sons of respondent-landlord are gainfully employed. Mere fact that the
brother of respondent-landlord is running a shop in the name of "Aavesh
Electricals" would not compel this Court to reach a conclusion that the said
business is being run by one of the sons, namely, Aavesh, as it has been
sufficiently proved on record that the said business is being carried out by
the real brother of respondent-landlord, namely, Birender Kumar.
10. Moreover, no evidence at all has been brought on record by the
petitioner-tenant to controvert or doubt the genuineness of the
relinquishment deed Ex.PW4/4 entered into between the respondent-
landlord and his brother, regarding the shops in question. Nonetheless, the
execution of relinquishment deed has not been disputed by any of the family
members, in the eviction proceedings between respondent-landlord and
petitioner-tenant, the motive behind the execution of the said relinquishment
deed cannot be allowed to be gone into. In view of the above, genuineness
about the bonafide need of the two sons of respondent-landlord has been
sufficiently established on record beyond doubt and in the absence of proof
of any other suitable premises, petitioner-tenant has no right to dictate his
terms to the respondent-landlord by submitting that the sons of respondent-
landlord should utilize the open space lying behind the shops in question.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115923
2023:PHHC:115923
CR-2987-2019 (O&M) --4--
11. In view of the discussion made herein above, finding no illegality
or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, the
present petition is, hereby dismissed, upholding the same.
24.08.2023 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sonika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115923
4 of 4
