Managing Director, Markfed, ... vs S.C. Bhalla Thr. Lrs And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2898 P&H

                                   334

                                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                                CHANDIGARH

                                                                                     CR-1490-2022 (O&M)
                                                                                     Date of decision : 22.02.2023


                                   Managing Director, MARKFED, Punjab                                 ... Petitioner(s)

                                                                           Versus

                                   S.C. Bhalla (deceased) through LRs & Ors.                        ... Respondent(s)



                                   CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN



                                   Present :         Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate and
                                                     Mr. Prabhsher Singh Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                                     Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate and
                                                     Ms. Sunita Punia, Advocate for the respondent No.1.


                                   ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

The present revision petition has been preferred against the

impugned order dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Rent

Controller whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of the ejectment petition has

been allowed.

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that S.C. Bhalla,

the owner of the premises in dispute, filed an ejectment petition under

Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as

applicable to Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Rent Act') for eviction

of the petitioner herein from the entire first, second and third floors of SCO

No.22, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh on the grounds of sub-letting, personal YOGESH SHARMA 2023.02.23 10:17 necessity, material alteration, impairing the value and utility of the premises, I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
                                    CR-1490-2022 (O&M)                                                        -2-

ceased to occupy and non-payment of rent. During the pendency of the

ejectment petition, S.C. Bhalla, the original owner, died and thereafter his

legal representatives were impleaded as parties. After being impleaded as

parties, the legal representatives moved an application for amendment of the

ejectment petition for pleading his own bonafide personal necessity.

Respondent No.1 herein wanted to add para 10-A after para 10 to state that

he did not own and possess any other commercial property in the urban area

of Chandigarh and has not vacated the same and also wanted to substitute

para No.11 that since the petitioner herein has not paid the arrears of rent

qua the premises, so the cause of action is still continuing. The amendment

application was allowed vide the impugned order dated 04.03.2022.

Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed by

the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the

ejectment petition was filed on the ground of bonafide personal necessity of

S.C. Bhalla and after his death, in case respondent No.1 herein wanted to

plead his own bonafide personal necessity, a separate ejectment petition

would be required to be filed. In support of his contention, he has relied

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyawati

Vs. Man Mohan [1996 (2) RentLR 214].

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has contended

that subsequent events can be taken into account and the legal

representatives of the deceased landlord can prosecute the ejectment petition

on the basis of their own personal need in substitution of the need of the YOGESH SHARMA 2023.02.23 10:17 deceased landlord. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
                                    CR-1490-2022 (O&M)                                                        -3-

judgments in the cases of Kedar Nath Agrawal (Dead) Vs. Dhanraji Devi

(Dead) by LRs [2004 (2) RCR (Rent) 498]; Rajinder Singh Vs. Satinder

Kaur & Ors. [2015 (1) RCR (Rent) 427]; Naresh Paul Vs. Usha Rani &

Ors. [2010 (9) RCR (Civil) 342]; Ramesh Kumar Vs. Manoj Kumar &

Ors. [2010 (59) RCR (Civil) 155] and Vijay Kumar Vs. Sham Lal

through LR Karan Sachdeva [2019 (2) RCR (Rent) 621].

Heard.

In the present case, originally the ejectment petition was filed

by S.C. Bhalla who expired during it's pendency. Thereafter, the legal

representatives of S.C. Bhalla were impleaded and the legal representative

i.e. respondent No.1 herein, by way of the amendment application, sought to

incorporate that he required the premises for his own bonafide personal

necessity. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that for the said

purpose a separate ejectment petition would have to be filed deserves to be

rejected in view of the settled law.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedar Nath Agrawal

(supra) has held as under :

"33. Conjoint reading of clause (a) of sub-section (1)

and sub- section (7) of Section 21 makes it clear that

where the possession is sought by the landlord on the

ground of bonafide requirement and during the

pendency of the application, the landlord dies, his legal

representatives can prosecute such application on the

basis of their own need in substitution of the need of the YOGESH SHARMA 2023.02.23 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

deceased."

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CR-1490-2022 (O&M) -4-

In the case of Rajinder Singh (supra), it has been held as

under:

"6. Death is an event which is not in the control of

anyone. To say that ground of personal necessity was

individualistic in its tone and tenor and was only for the

landlord in his individual capacity, is not correct. This

ground of ejectment against the petitioner-tenant also

enures for the benefit of his widow. However, the

petitioner will have to establish existence of such

personal necessity in the background of facts and milieu

concerning her in the contemporaneous circumstances.

In any case, allowing of the application for amendment

of the petition ipso facto is no proof of her personal

requirement of the premises so as to order eviction

which aspect is yet to be determined by the Rent

Controller in the light of the evidence of the parties."

The judgment referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner

in the case of Vidyawati (supra) is not in ejectment proceedings under the

rent laws and is in a civil suit and on a totally different proposition of law

and hence, would not come to the aid of the petitioner.

In view of the settled law, no fault can be found with the

impugned order passed by the Rent Controller allowing the application for

amendment of the ejectment petition for pleading the bonafide personal YOGESH SHARMA 2023.02.23 10:17 necessity of the legal representatives. There is no error of law or jurisdiction I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
                                    CR-1490-2022 (O&M)                                                    -5-



                                   in the impugned order.

As a result, I do not find any merit in the present revision

petition which is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also

stand disposed off.

Dismissed.

                                                                                 ( ALKA SARIN )
                                   22.02.2023                                         JUDGE
                                   Yogesh Sharma

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

YOGESH SHARMA 2023.02.23 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh