Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Kumar vs Mahavir Prashad on 5 September, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115838
CR-2250-2024 [1]
119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-2250-2024
Date of decision: 05.09.2024
Vijay Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
Mahavir Prashad
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner-tenant has filed the present revision petition
challenging the order dated 30.03.2024 vide which the Appellate
Authority, Narnaul had set aside the judgment dated 01.11.2018 passed
by the Rent Controller, Narnaul and had allowed the eviction petition
filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban
(Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as
"the 1973 Act") on the ground of bona fide necessity.
2. Brief facts in the present case are that the respondent-
landlord had filed an application for eviction (Annexure P-1) on
17.04.2017 under Section 13 of the 1973 Act, of one shop which was
situated at Mohalla Kailash Nagar, Rewari Road, Narnaul, Tehsil
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115838
CR-2250-2024 [2]
Narnaul, District Mahendergarh. A perusal of the said application for
eviction (Annexure P-1) would show that it was the case of the
respondent-landlord that the premises in question was let out to the
petitioner-tenant vide rent note dated 22.05.1989 at the rate of Rs.300/-
per month besides house tax for three months. It was stated that the
period of tenancy had already expired and the present petitioner was
holding the possession of the shop in dispute as a statutory tenant and that
w.e.f. 01.01.2011, the rent payable was Rs.750/- per month with house
tax. The eviction of the premises in question was sought on the ground of
non-payment of rent from 01.02.2016 to 31.03.2017, on account of
personal necessity and also on account of the premises being unfit and
unsafe for human habitation, as the present petitioner had made a hole in
the ceiling of the shop in dispute and had got installed a dish for TV, as
well as on account of the other acts of the petitioner. With respect to the
ground of personal necessity, it had been stated that the respondent-
landlord had retired from the Indian Air Force in the year 1982 after
which he had worked in the private sector and had attained the age of 68
years and could not do any job any further and thus, required the shop in
dispute for his own work. It was further stated that the shop in question
was 8x10 feet.
3. A reply dated 09.10.2017 (Annexure P-2) was filed by the
petitioner-tenant to the said eviction petition and the fact that the
respondent had retired from the Indian Air Force and thereafter, had also
done a private job for sometime, had not been disputed. The Rent
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115838
CR-2250-2024 [3]
Controller had dismissed the said eviction petition vide its judgment
dated 01.11.2018.
4. Aggrieved against the judgment dated 01.11.2018 passed by
the Rent Controller, the respondent-landlord had filed an appeal before
the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority vide impugned
judgment dated 30.03.2024 had allowed the said appeal and had set aside
the judgment dated 01.11.2018 passed by the Rent Controller and had
directed the present petitioner-tenant to hand over the vacant possession
of the demised premises to the landlord within a period of three months
from the date of passing of the impugned judgment. The eviction was
passed on the ground of personal necessity and while considering the said
ground, the Appellate Authority had taken into consideration the plea
raised by the landlord, which was supported by his evidence as PW1. The
Appellate Authority further took into consideration the cross-examination
of the present petitioner-tenant, in which the tenant had stated that he was
not aware about whether the respondent-landlord was running the
business of property dealing from his house. It was observed that the Rent
Controller had primarily rejected the petition of the respondent-landlord
on the ground that he had also filed a petition under Section 4 of the Rent
Act for fixation of fair rent and thus, the requirement was not bona fide
and that the said reasoning was against law, inasmuch as, filing of the
petition under Section 4 of the Rent Act for fixation of fair rent was an
independent right of the landlord and that enhancement of fair rent could
not be made a ground to dismiss the eviction petition, which was filed on
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115838
CR-2250-2024 [4]
the ground of personal necessity, more so, when in the present case, there
is nothing to doubt the personal necessity of the respondent-landlord. It
was further stated that the respondent-landlord wanted to start his own
business and every senior citizen had a right to live a dignified and
respectful life and nobody could force him to be a parasite on his children
and that the petitioner-tenant had not adduced any evidence that the
respondent herein was owner/landlord of any other shop and that the
petitioner-tenant had already utilized the shop in question for the last 35
years and he could not claim his right over the same on flimsy grounds. It
is the said judgment of the Appellate Authority which is under challenge
in the present revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
present case, the respondent-landlord had filed two petitions
simultaneously, one being the present petition for eviction on three
grounds, including the ground of personal necessity, and the other
petition was filed under Section 4 of the 1973 Act for fixing fair rent. It is
submitted that the said fact showed that the requirement of the
respondent-landlord was not bona fide as on the one side, he was seeking
fixation of fair rent and on the other side, he wanted eviction on the
ground of personal necessity and that the Rent Controller had rightly
dismissed the eviction petition and the judgment of the Appellate
Authority reversing the judgment passed by the Rent Controller is illegal
and deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the judgment of the Appellate Authority further deserves
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115838
CR-2250-2024 [5]
to be set aside, inasmuch as, contradictory grounds have been taken up by
the respondent-landlord for seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant,
inasmuch as, at one stage, it had been stated by the respondent-landlord
that the property was unsafe and unfit for human habitation whereas at
another stage, the respondent was seeking eviction on the ground of bona
fide requirement.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
has perused the paper book.
7. The finding of the Appellate Authority to the effect that the
petitioner had retired from the Indian Air Force in the year 1982 and
thereafter, had worked in the private sector for sometime and had attained
the age of 68 years and that he wanted the shop in question for his own
use and was not in occupation of any other similarly situated shop has not
been disputed before this Court. Moreover, a perusal of the reply dated
09.10.2017 (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner-tenant would show that
the aspect of retirement from the Indian Air Force and thereafter, the
respondent-landlord having done a private job in the private sector for
sometime has not been disputed. The observations of the Appellate
Authority to the extent that every senior citizen has a right to live a
dignified and respectful life and nobody can force him to be a parasite on
his children and that the landlord has a right to start his own business and
that the present petitioner-tenant has not adduced any evidence to show
that the landlord was the owner of any other shop, have not been shown
to be perverse or illegal. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115838
CR-2250-2024 [6]
respondent-landlord has prima facie established his bona fide
requirement.
8. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to
filing of the petition under Section 4 of the 1973 Act for determination of
fair rent, has been rightly rejected by the Appellate Authority. A
Coordinate Bench of this Court in CR-1978-2006, decided on 17.04.2006
titled as Punjab National Bank Vs. Ankur Singla and others, had
observed that mere filing of a petition under Section 4 of the 1973 Act for
determination of fair rent was not sufficient to draw adverse inference
against the bona fide requirement of the landlord. In the said case, similar
plea with respect to filing of a petition under Section 4 of the 1973 Act
was rejected and after taking into consideration the provisions of the
entire 1973 Act, including the provision which entitles a tenant to seek
restoration of possession of the premises vacated by him if the landlord
fails to occupy the same within 12 months of taking possession, the
petition filed by the tenant therein was dismissed. Relevant portion of the
said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"6. As far as bona-fide of the personal necessity of the
landlord is concerned, in my view, mere filing of a petition
under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1973 for determination of the fair rent of the
premises which was rented out in the year 1985, per se, is
not sufficient enough to draw an adverse inference against
the bona-fides of the landlord. There is not an iota of
evidence led by the Bank to show that the landlord has been
pressurising the Bank either to increase the rent or to vacate
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115838
CR-2250-2024 [7]
the premises. On the contrary, the evidence, as discussed by
both the Courts, does reveal that the respondent had gone
abroad for higher education and on his return, filed the
ejectment petition with a specific plea that he wanted to run
his own independent business from the demised premises. Be
that as it may, under Section 13(6) of the Act of 1973 which
entitles a tenant to seek restoration of possession of the
premises vacated by him if the landlord fails to occupy the
same within twelve months of taking possession, is in itself
an in-built safe guard provided for a tenant who has been
evicted on a false ground."
No judgment to the contrary has been cited on behalf of the
petitioner.
9. Second argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner
with respect to contradictory grounds taken up by respondent-landlord, is
also meritless. In this regard, it is observed that the landlord can seek
eviction of the tenant on various grounds mentioned under the 1973 Act.
It is a matter of settled law that every ground has to be independently
considered on the basis of pleadings and evidence, and the finding with
respect to one ground is not binding with respect to the finding on the
other ground. It is further a matter of settled law that merely because the
landlord has not been able to prove one ground or withdraws one ground,
the same would not be a ground to reject the other ground. In the present
case, as has been fairly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner,
the ground with respect to the premises being unfit and unsafe for human
habitation has not been pressed by the landlord, as is apparent from the
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115838
CR-2250-2024 [8]
observations made in para 19 of the judgment of the Appellate Authority
and even otherwise, the Appellate Authority, on the basis of the evidence
on record, has come to the conclusion that there is nothing on record to
show that the property in question is unsafe and unfit for human
habitation. As per the settled law, the plea of bona fide requirement is
required to be independently seen and the same has been independently
seen and the Appellate Authority has rightly come to the conclusion that
the said ground is made out and has rightly passed the eviction order on
the said ground.
10. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the
judgment dated 30.03.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority, Narnaul is
in accordance with law and the same deserves to be upheld and the
present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly, dismissed.
05.09.2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
8 of 8
