Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh And Another vs Jagir Singh And Others on 20 November, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154599
CM-20133-CII-2024 in/and -1-
CR-5823-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(118)
CM-20133-CII-2024 in/and
CR-5823-2024
Date of Decision: - 20.11.2024
Kuldeep Singh and another
....Petitioners
Versus
Jagir Singh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. Shubham Goyal, Advocate,
for the applicant-petitioners.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
CM-20133-CII-2024
1. This is an application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section
151 CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for recalling
the order dated 04.10.2024 whereby the main revision petition has been
dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which are duly
supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The order dated
04.10.2024 is recalled and the main revision petition is restored to its
original number.
CR-5823-2024
1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154599
CM-20133-CII-2024 in/and -2-
CR-5823-2024
dated 20.07.2018 passed by the Rent Controller, Nakodar, vide which the
petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act of 1949') by the present respondent-landlord
had been allowed and the petitioners had been directed to vacate the
premises within two months. Eviction had been ordered on the ground of
personal necessity. Challenge is also to the order dated 23.11.2023, vide
which the appeal filed by the petitioners had been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the respondent-
landlord had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1949 for
ejectment of the petitioners from the shop in question on the averment
that the present petitioners had taken the shop in dispute on rent in the
month of September, 2006 @ Rs.1700/- per month for a period of 11
months and undertook to vacate the same after lapse of the contractual
period of tenancy and also to pay the rent regularly but thereafter had
failed to vacate the said shop and thus he became a statutory tenant. It was
averred that Jagir Singh had two sons and Gurmit Singh (landlord) had
one son, namely, Maninder Singh, who was aged 24 years and had
studied upto 10 + 2 and was of marriageable age and that the said
Maninder Singh, son of Gurmit Singh, was to carry on the business of
General Provisional Store alongwith Gurmit Singh in the shop in order to
settle and earn his livelihood. The eviction was sought on two grounds,
one of them being that shop was bona fide required for opening of the
provisional store for Maninder Singh. The present petitioners had
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154599
CM-20133-CII-2024 in/and -3-
CR-5823-2024
opposed the said petition. The Rent Controller, Nakodar vide judgment
dated 20.07.2018 had allowed the said eviction petition on the ground of
personal necessity and granted two months time to the petitioners to
vacate the said premises. The Rent Controller, Nakodar while passing the
said eviction order took into consideration the documents, evidence as
well as the relevant law and passed a detailed and well reasoned
judgment.
3. Petitioners filed an appeal against the said judgment and the
Appellate Authority dismissed the said appeal vide judgment dated
23.11.2023. It was noticed in the said judgment dated 23.11.2023 that
there was convincing evidence, including the evidence of Jagir Singh
(AW-3) and Gurmit Singh (AW-4), to the effect that the need of the
petitioners is bona fide and would come within the ambit of personal
necessity and that the shop in question was required for the son of Gurmit
Singh, namely, Maninder Singh to start the business of a provisional store
in the said premises. The sole argument raised on behalf of the present
petitioners to the effect that the said Maninder Singh was residing in a
foreign country and thus, the need of the said Maninder Singh had come
to an end, had been rejected by the Appellate Authority while relying
upon a judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case titled
as "Madho Ram Garg Vs. Baldev Singh Bath and another, reported as
2008(3) CCC-551 (P&H), in which, it had been observed that a landlord
may reside in India or anywhere in the world and still run a successful
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154599
CM-20133-CII-2024 in/and -4-
CR-5823-2024
business, without residing permanently in the urban area concerned. The
said judgment was passed on 23.11.2023 and the present petition has been
filed on 13.08.2024 and no justifiable reason has been given for the delay
in challenging the judgment of the Rent Controller and the Appellate
Authority.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the argument
which was raised before the 1st Appellate Authority to the effect that since
the son of Gurmit Singh i.e. Maninder Singh was residing in foreign
country, thus, his need had come to an end and therefore the ground of
personal necessity no more survived and on the said ground alone, the
eviction petition deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgments
deserve to be set aside.
5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
has gone through the paper-book and finds that the argument raised by
learned counsel for the petitioners does not have any merit and deserves
to be rejected.
6. It has been concurrently found by the Rent Controller,
Nakodar as well as by the Appellate Authority that the evidence on record
was cogent and convincing to the effect that need of the petitioners was
bona fide and that the shop was required for the purpose of starting the
business of provisional store in the demised premises by Maninder Singh,
son of Gurmit Singh. No perversity or illegality in the evidence or in the
finding has been shown to this Court. No sufficient cause has been shown
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154599
CM-20133-CII-2024 in/and -5-
CR-5823-2024
as to why the present petition has been filed after a delay of more than 9
months from the date of passing of the order dated 23.11.2023. The sole
argument raised on behalf of the petitioners also deserves to be rejected in
view of the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case
of Madho Ram Garg (supra), in which, while considering the argument
raised on behalf of the petitioner therein to the effect that there was
nothing to show that the landlord had shifted to India, it was observed
that the landlord may reside anywhere in India or in the world and he
could still run a successful business without residing in the urban area
concerned and the same cannot be a circumstance to deny relief to the
landlord. No contrary judgment has been cited by the learned counsel for
the petitioners.
7. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the
impugned orders are in accordance with law and deserve to be upheld and
the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and
is accordingly dismissed.
( VIKAS BAHL )
November 20, 2024 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
5 of 5
