Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Jindal vs Ajudhya Sagar And Others on 1 March, 2024
Author: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Bench: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029858
2024:PHHC:029858
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.7482 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 01.03.2024
Sandeep Jindal
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Ajudhya Sagar and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Argued by:- Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate
for the revisionist-petitioner.
Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Service of notice upon proforma-respondent No.4
dispensed with vide the order dated 15.01.2024.
*****
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the order handed down by learned Rent
Controller, Ludhiana on 10.01.2019, whereby the Rent Petition, as filed
by respondents No.1 to 3-landlords (here-in-after to be referred as 'the
landlords') for seeking eviction of the petitioner and proforma-respondent
No.4 from the demised premises, had been allowed on the ground that they
(landlords) bona-fidely required these premises for their own use and the
petitioner and proforma-respondent No.4 had been granted 02 (two)
months' time to hand over the physical possession of the above-mentioned
premises to the landlords and also by the judgment as passed by learned
Appellate Authority, Ludhiana on 26.08.2019, qua dismissal of the Appeal
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029858
CR No.7482 of 2019 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:029858
moved by the petitioner against the afore-referred eviction order, he
(petitioner) has preferred this revision-petition to lay challenge to the same.
2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts, as emerging
from the perusal of the record and culminating in the filing of the present
revision-petition, are that the landlords filed the above-said Rent Petition
against proforma-respondent No.4 and the petitioner (arrayed as respondents
No.1 and 2 respectively, therein) for seeking their eviction from the demised
premises on the grounds that proforma-respondent No.4 was in arrears of
rent for the period from 16.09.2004 to 15.01.2012 and had also not paid the
house-tax w.e.f 01.06.2004 onwards and he had sub-let these premises to
the petitioner without their consent and moreover, landlord Gorakh Nath
and the sons of landlords Ajudhya Sagar and Ramesh Kumar required the
said premises for starting/setting up their business in the same.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that proforma-respondent No.4
had chosen to be proceeded against ex-parte before the Rent Controller.
However, the petitioner filed his written-statement, contesting the claim of
the landlords therein, inter-alia, on the grounds that the demised premises
were, initially, rented out to his father who expired in the year 2004 and
thereafter, he had been carrying on the business in the afore-said premises
and had, regularly, been paying the rent to landlord Gorakh Nath and thus,
he was a tenant and the landlords did not require these premises for their
own use and rather, in fact, they had filed the Rent Petition as they had
been insisting/pressurizing him for increasing the rate of rent exorbitantly
but due to the slump in his business, he was not in a position to enhance the
same accordingly.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029858
CR No.7482 of 2019 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:029858
4. The parties were put to the trial by framing the issues on
14.01.2013. After appreciating and evaluating the evidence, as led by the
landlords and the petitioner on the record and hearing their respective
counsel, the Rent Controller allowed the Rent Petition and ordered for the
eviction of proforma-respondent No.4 and the petitioner from the demised
premises on the ground that the landlords required these premises for their
bona-fide personal use but observed that the ground of non-payment of the
arrears of rent had become redundant and also rejected the ground, as set-
forth by the landlords qua the sub-letting of the said premises. The petitioner
moved an Appeal against the above-referred eviction order and the landlords
also filed their Cross-Objections to assail the findings, returned by the Rent
Controller qua the rejection of the pleas, as raised by them regarding the
non-payment of arrears of rent and the sub-letting of the demised premises
and vide the impugned judgment, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the
afore-mentioned Appeal and the Cross-Objections.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner as
well as learned Senior counsel for respondents No.1 to 3-landlords in the
instant revision-petition and have also perused the record carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that
petitioners Ajudhya Sagar and Gorakh Nath had been running the Ration-
Depot and moreover, the landlords had let-out several other properties to
various tenants and he has further contended that the plea, as taken by the
landlords regarding the demised premises having, actually, been let-out to
proforma-respondent No.4 and his having sub-let the same to the petitioner,
has been rejected by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029858
CR No.7482 of 2019 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:029858
all these facts make it quite explicit that their (landlords') plea/ground qua
the requirement of the demised premises for their bona-fide personal use, is
not a genuine one.
7. Per-contra, learned Senior counsel for the landlords has argued
that the sons of landlords Ajudhya Sagar and Ramesh Kumar have already
completed their education and hence, the landlords intend to start/set-up the
business for them in the demised premises, so as to enable them to become
self-sufficient to earn their livelihood and moreover, landlord Gorakh Nath
also wants to start the business and therefore, they (landlords) bona-fidely
require these premises for the above-said purpose and hence, the impugned
order passed by the Rent Controller regarding the eviction of the petitioner
from the demised premises on the afore-discussed ground and the judgment
rendered by the Appellate Authority for upholding the same, are perfectly
legal and correct.
8. As regards the contention qua landlords Ajudhya Sagar and
Gorakh Nath having been running Ration-Depots, the same does not hold
much water as PW-2 Harish and PW-3 Satish Kumar, the sons of landlords
Ajudhya Sagar and Ramesh Kumar, made categoric depositions regarding
the bona-fide requirement of the demised premises for setting-up/starting
their business in the same. It is quite natural for the above-named landlords,
being the parents, to make best possible endeavours to settle their children in
life, by facilitating them to become financially independent and it being so,
there is nothing wrong if they want/plan to start a separate business for their
sons, for this purpose and landlord Gorakh Nath can also not be deprived of
the opportunity to expand his business. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029858
CR No.7482 of 2019 (O&M) -5- 2024:PHHC:029858
has also specifically observed in Anil Bajaj & Anr versus Vinod Ahuja,
AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2294 that "it would hardly require any
reiteration of the settled principle of law that it is not for the tenant to
dictate to the landlord as to how the property belonging to the landlord
should be utilized by him for the purpose of his business and also, the fact
that the landlord is doing business from various other premises cannot
foreclose his right to seek eviction from the tenanted premises so long as he
intends to use the said tenanted premise for his own business".
9. So far as the contention regarding the landlords having let-out
several other properties to various tenants is concerned, it is worth-while to
point it out here that throughout in his written-statement, the petitioner has
nowhere even whispered about this fact. Even otherwise, the Appellate
Authority has made categoric observations in Para No.11 in the impugned
judgment that though some documents had been marked on the record to
establish the afore-said fact but the properties, as mentioned therein, were
the residential quarters/rooms and no convincing evidence had been led to
prove that any other commercial property was occupied/owned or was got
vacated by the landlords. The petitioner has not been able to show as to
how these observations are factually wrong or are perverse in any manner.
In Bhupinder Singh Bawa versus Asha Devi, 2017(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 1, it
has been observed by the Apex Court that "mere fact that the son of
respondent-landlady is engaged as Director in a family company, cannot
be an impediment to his running an independent business and if no
alternative premise was lying vacant for his running the business, it is open
to her to choose a more suitable premises for carrying on the business by
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029858
CR No.7482 of 2019 (O&M) -6- 2024:PHHC:029858
her son and she cannot be dictated by the tenant as to from which shop her
son should start his business". In view of these observations, it becomes
crystal clear that it is for the landlords to choose as to where they intend to
set-up/start their new business or to expand their business.
10. As regards the last contention about the grounds of sub-letting
and non-payment of arrears of rent having been rejected, the same can, by
no stretch of imagination, be construed to be cogent one to paint the entire
evidence, as led by the landlords on the record to substantiate their plea qua
their bona-fide necessity for the demised premises, with black colour and to
reverse/upset the unequivocal concurrent findings, as returned by the Rent
Controller and the Appellate Authority, to the effect that they (landlords)
require these premises for their own bona-fide use.
11. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the
impugned order and the judgment, handed down by both the Courts below,
do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, irregularity or perversity, so as
to warrant any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the same are upheld
and the revision-petition in hand, being sans any merit, stands dismissed.
01.03.2024 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
neetu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029858
6 of 6
