Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod Kumar Aggarwal vs Darshan Lal Grover on 2 July, 2024
113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-3599-2023
2023
Date of Decision: July 02, 2024
VINOD KUMAR AGGARWAL ........Petitioner
Versus
DARSHAN LAL GROVER ........Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present:Mr. Ishmeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. B.K. Mehta, Advocate and
Mr. Kartikeya Swaroop Mehta, Advocate for respondent.
****
HARKESH MANUJA,
MANUJA J. (ORAL)
By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to
the judgments dated 16.12.2021 and 10.05.2023 passed by the
authorities below whereby an eviction petition filed at the instance of
respondent-landlord
landlord stands allowed.
2. Briefly stating, the respondent
respondent-landlord
landlord sought eviction of
petitioner-tenant
tenant from
from a shop measuring 10ft. x 20ft. bearing Municipal
No.XIV/96 sitauted in Street No.9, New Town Moga, Tehsil and District
Moga. The eviction was sought on the ground
grounds of arrears of rent as well
as bona fide requirement while pleading that respondent
respondent-landlord
rd retired
as Assistant Food and Supply Officer and was without any work
work, as such
he wanted to start his own business in the premises in question.
3. In response, a written statement was filed wherein, the plea of
bona fide requirement of the respondent-landlord
respondent landlord was seriously disputed
while submitting that the respondent-landlord
respondent landlord was helping his younger son
namely Amrinder Singh in his shop under the na
name and style of "Grover
Departmental Store" and therefore did not require the demised premises
premises.
It was further pleaded that filing of eviction petition was merely a ploy to
put pressure upon petitioner-tenant so as to enhance the rate of rent from
Rs.550/- to Rs.1100/- per month. However, as regards arrears of rent, the
same were deposited before the Rent Controller.
4. The Rent Controller vide decision dated 16.12.2021 ordered
eviction against petitioner-tenant on the grounds of bona fide necessity
though, the ground of arrears of rent was not pressed by the respondent-
landlord. Aggrieved of the decision dated 16.12.2021, the petitioner-tenant
approached the Appellate Authority, however, the appeal was dismissed
vide judgment-decision dated 10.05.2023.
5. Impugning the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that in the given facts and circumstances, the bona fide
necessity of the respondent-landlord was not made out in the present case
as he being a retired man was already keeping himself busy by attending
and helping his son Amrinder Singh in his shop being run under the name
and style of "Grover Departmental Store". He further points out that
respondent-landlord did not approach authorities below with clean hands
as he was owning different other properties within the urban area of Moga
which were never disclosed in the eviction petition and thus, he was
required to be non-suited.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents points out that in pursuance to eviction orders passed by the
authorities below, the possession of demised premises was handed over
to the respondent-landlord on 22.05.2023 in the execution proceedings
and submits that at this stage, no interference was required with the
judgments passed by the Courts below. He also submits that the
authorities below recorded concurrent findings of fact about bona fide
need in favour of respondent-landlord upon appreciation of pleadings and
the evidence available on record.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the paper-book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. As per evidence available on record, respondent-landlord
having retired as Assistant Food and Supply Officer from the State of
Punjab being hale and hearty wanted to keep himself active and busy by
setting up his own shop/business in the demised premises. Rather, the
factum of attending and helping his son namely Amrinder Singh in his
shop being run under the name and style of "Grover Departmental Store"
goes in favour of the petitioner so as to infer that he was still mentally and
physically capable enough to establish and run his own shop. Moreover,
setting up of an independent establishment was also going to help the
petitioner, financially as well as socially. Besides it, as regards the plea set
up by the petitioner-tenant about other properties being owned by
respondent-landlord, in the humble opinion of this Court, there is no
substance therein as a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by
both the authorities that all those properties are of residential nature
whereas, demised premises being a shop is of commercial nature and is
required by respondent-landlord for his own bona fide necessity for setting
up of a shop so as to keep himself active and busy after retirement.
Furthermore, even the physical possession of the demised premises
already stands declined to the respondent-landlord since more than one
year, under the execution proceedings.
9. In such circumstances, finding no illegality or perversity with
the reasoning recorded by the authorities below, the present prevision
petition is dismissed, being devoid of merits.
02.07.2024 (HARKESH MANUJA)
Tejwinder JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
