Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Narula Motor Stores And Others vs Bhupinder Singh And Another on 8 January, 2025
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002811
CR-3472-2016 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
108
CR-3472-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision : 08.01.2025
M/s Narula Motor Stores & ors. ...... Petitioners
vs
Bhupinder Singh & anr. ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present :- Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate
Mr. Minkal Rawal, Advocate
Mr. Abhinav Goel, Advocate and
Mr. Arjun Sangwan, Advocate
for the respondents.
***
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. Tenant is in revision aggrieved of the judgment passed by
the Appellate Authority, Yamuna Nagar dated 25.02.2016. The appeal
preferred by respondent No.1-landlord-Bhupinder Singh has been
allowed. Findings recorded by Rent Controller, Yamuna Nagar in its
judgment dated 08.08.2013, whereby the eviction petition filed by the
landlord was ordered to be dismissed stand reversed. Petitioner-tenant
has been ordered to be evicted from demised premises.
2. In order to avoid confusion, parties hereinafter are referred
to by their status in the relationship i.e. the petitioners as the tenants and
respondent No.1 as the landlord.
1 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002811
CR-3472-2016 (O&M)
3. Landlord filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the
Haryana Urban Control of (Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as the '1973 Act'). Ejectment of the tenants was sought from
the demised premises on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent
and bonafide need of the landlord. Landlord claimed that he is in
transport business. Presently, he is running his business from Chobara.
The same is not suitable for his business and thus, he needs demised
premises for his own need.
4. Tenant disputed landlord-tenant relationship. Bonafide need
as projected by the landlord was also controverted, pleading that the
landlord is in occupation of other commercial buildings within the same
urban area. It was also pleaded that the landlord has deliberately
concealed of him being in possession of other commercial building
within the same urban area and thus, the eviction petition needs to be
dismissed.
5. Provisional rent was assessed by the Rent Controller.
Tenant made legal tender thereof. The ground of eviction qua non-
payment of arrears of rent ceased to exist.
6. The parties led their respective evidence. Rent Controller
after analysing the evidence, came to the conclusion that the landlord
was guilty of concealment. He failed to disclose fact of him being in
occupation of other shop within municipal limits of Yamuna Nagar.
Rather, a specific plea was raised in the eviction petition that the
landlord neither owned nor is in possession of any other shop in the
concerned urban area. The eviction petition filed by the landlord was
thus, ordered to be dismissed. Rent Controller further found that during
2 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002811
CR-3472-2016 (O&M)
pendency of the proceedings, an application was moved by the tenant on
31.05.2012 seeking amendment of written statement. Tenant proposed
to incorporate the fact regarding landlord being in occupation of shop at
Jagadhri road in his written statement. Landlord filed reply thereto
admitting the fact of being owner of one shop previously in possession
of tenant Multani Fruits and admitted that the shop came under his title
on 10.10.2007, when release deed was executed by his mother in his
favour. Once the landlord admitted that he owns other shop and got the
same vacated from Multani Fruits, he is proved to be in occupation of
the other shop. Despite being in knowledge of the said fact, the landlord
is guilty of having concealed the said fact and is thus, not entitled to
claim bonafide need.
7. In appeal preferred by the landlord, the findings recorded
by the Rent Controller regarding concealment stand reversed.
Appellate Authority re-appreciated the evidence to conclude that non-
disclosure by landlord being in possession of other shop is not fatal to
his case. Appellate Authority held that evidence has come on record
that the shop in question was not appropriate for the landlord to run his
business and was thus, not suitable. Reversing the findings recorded by
the Rent Controller, Appellate Authority allowed the eviction petition.
8. Mr. Chopra, senior counsel appearing for the tenants has
eloquently argued that the impugned judgment passed by Appellate
Authority is in teeth of settled law and thus, cannot be sustained. Rent
Controller returned specific finding regarding there being no
relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties, yet Appellate
Authority has allowed the eviction petition. The aforesaid contention
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002811
CR-3472-2016 (O&M)
raised by Mr. Chopra sans merit and cannot be accepted. Mr. Chopra is
not in a position to dispute that qua demised premises, release deed has
been proved by the landlord. It has been proved that landlord holds title
to the property. In terms of the provisions as contained under Section
2(c) of 1973 Act, 'landlord includes owner'. Owner being a paramount
title holder cannot be precluded from maintaining eviction petition. In
view of above, the contention raised by Mr. Chopra cannot be accepted.
9. Mr. Chopra while assailing the findings recorded by the
Appellate Authority on the issue of bonafide need, submits that the
authority reversed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller without
meeting the reasoning recorded by the Rent Controller. It has been
contended that in view of ratio of law laid down by Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Banke Ram Vs. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi, 1977(1)
RCR (Rent) 595 as followed by this Court in Sardari Lal (since
deceased) through his LRs Vs. Rattan Lal (since deceased) through
his LRs & ors passed in CR No.3589 of 2016 decided on 26.09.2024,
the landlord is under obligation to plead the ingredients of Section 13.
In the absence of the said pleadings, eviction petition itself will not be
maintainable and no evidence can be looked into. The landlord is under
obligation to plead and prove the necessary ingredients as contemplated
under Section 13(3)(a) of 1973 Act.
10. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone
through the records of the case.
11. There cannot be any dispute regarding settled proposition of
law. Section 13(3) statutorily obligates landlord to plead and prove
occupation/vacation of any other premises within the concerned urban
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002811
CR-3472-2016 (O&M)
area. Section 13(3) reads as under:-
"13. (3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order
directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession -
(a) in the case of a residential building, if, -
(i) he requires it for his own occupation, is
not occupying another residential building in
the urban area concerned and has not vacated
such building without sufficient cause after the
commencement of the 1949 Act in the said
urban area;
[(ii) he requires it for use as an office or
consulting room by his son who intends to start
practice as a lawyer, qualified architect or
chartered accountant or as a "registered
practitioner" within the meaning of that
expression used in the Punjab Medical
Registration Act, 1916, the Punjab Ayurvedic
and Unani Practitioners Act, 1963, or the
Punjab Homoeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965,
or for the residence of his son who is married :
[Substituted by Haryana Act 16 of 1978.]
Provided that such son is not occupying in the urban
area concerned any other building for use as office, consulting
room or residence, as the case may be, and has not vacated it
without sufficient cause after the commencement of the 1949
Act.]
(iii) it was let to the tenant for use as a residence by
reason of his being in the service or employment of the
landlord, and the tenant has ceased, whether before or after
the commencement of this Act, to be in such service or
employment :
Provided that where the tenant is a workman who has
been discharged or dismissed by the landlord from his service
or employment in contravention of the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he shall not be liable to be
evicted until the competent authority under that Act confirms
the order of discharge or dismissal made against him by the
landlord;
(iv) the tenant has already in his own possession a
residential building or subsequently acquires possession of, or
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002811
CR-3472-2016 (O&M)
erects, such a building reasonably sufficient for his
requirement in the urban area concerned;
(v) he is a member of the armed forces of the Union of
India and requires it for the occupation of his family and
produces a certificate, from the prescribed authority referred
to in section 7 of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925,
that he is serving under special conditions within the meaning
of section 3 of that Act."
12. The same has been interpreted by this Court in the case of
Sardari Lal (supra), following the dictum of Full Bench in Banke
Ram's case (supra) observing as under:-
"11. It is thus evident that where landlord applies for
eviction of tenant invoking Section 13 (3) (a) of the 1949 Act
he is required to prove :-
a) bona-fide need
b) that he is not occupying any other building in the
urban area concerned and
c) He has not vacated any such building without
sufficient cause after the commencement of the 1949
Act in the said urban area.
As per settled law need pleaded by the landlord needs
to be bona-fide. Mere desire of the landlord cannot be
construed as need. Where on the one hand there needs to be
element of need as opposed to mere desire or wish of the
landlord, on the other hand it is the landlord who is the best
judge of his requirement. It is neither for the tenant nor within
the domain of the Court to dictate him terms or to advise him
about alternate modes to satiate his need.
12. Mere bona-fide need is also not sufficient in terms of
the bare provision. The other two ingredients also need to be
satisfied. In case any of the other two ingredients stands
breached, claim of the landlord is bound to fail. In Banke
Ram Vs. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi, 1977(1) RCR (Rent) 595
Full Bench of this Court while dealing with the question of
pleading and proving the said two ingredients concluded as
under :-
"12. In the present case, we are concerned only with
the question as a principle of law as to whether it is
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002811
CR-3472-2016 (O&M)
essential to plead in an eviction application the
ingredients of Sub-clauses (b) and (c) and not the
question that if in a particular case these ingredients
are not pleaded, but the parties have led evidence with
regard to them, what will be the effect? In any given
case, where facts have not been averred in the
pleading, a number of questions can arise as to
whether proper evidence has been adduced by the
landlord regarding those facts which do not find place
in the pleadings and secondly whether such evidence
will be admissible or not and lastly, whether the tenant
was taken by surprise or not and had led evidence with
full knowledge of the requisite contentions raised by
the landlord and whether the tenant has in those
circumstances been prejudiced or not. The Court
would be required to give full consideration to the
contentions raised by the respective parties and the
facts and circumstances of each case before giving its
decision in favour of the landlord or the tenant, tout
the decisions of the High Courts or the Supreme
Court, in this regard, cannot be of any avail to detract
from the validity of the proposition that it is necessary
for the landlord to make averments regarding the
ingredients of Sub-clauses (b) and (c). However, it
may be made clear that when it is held that it is
essential to plead the ingredients of Sub-clauses (b)
and (c) in the eviction application by the landlord, it
should not be understood that under no circumstances,
in the absence of pleadings, the evidence regarding
the ingredients envisaged in Sub-clauses, (b) and (c)
can be looked into. This is not peculiar to the eviction
applications. Similar considerations come into
operation even in the case of suits which are governed
by the specific and detailed provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure regarding pleadings.
13. This Court, the other High Courts and the
Supreme Court have had the occasion to make
pronouncements one way or the other in cases where
the evidence was led by parties in the absence of
requisite pleadings. Those decisions will serve as
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002811
CR-3472-2016 (O&M)
guides in eviction proceedings under the Act."
13. The pleadings raised by the landlord in the present case
need to be tested on the touchstone of aforesaid legal proposition. The
plea raised by the landlord reads as under:-
"4. That after the commencement of 1949 Act the
petitioner\land lord bona fide requires the Shop and Godown
in possession of the respondents for his personal use and
occupation, as the petitioner is not occupying any other non-
residential premises except one Chobara over the shops in
question within the Municipal limits of MC Yamuna Nagar
and has not vacated such building without sufficient cause
after the commencement of 1949 Act in the urban area of MC
Yamuna Nagar."
14. The plea satisfies the ingredients as contemplated under
Section 13(3). However, issue is concealment. The precise issue that
arises for consideration of this Court is:
"Whether on the date of filing of the eviction petition, the
landlord was in occupation of the shop related to Multani
fruits on the basis of which Rent Controller non-suited the
landlord?"
In case landlord was in occupation of the said shop,
eviction petition deserves dismissal.
15. The eviction petition was filed on 18.03.2009. In order to
prove that the landlord made false statement qua the ingredient of
Section 13(3), the tenant is required to prove that the shop relatable to
Multani Fruits was vacated prior to 18.03.2009 and the same fell to
possession of landlord prior to the said date.
16. The tenant sought amendment of written statement vide
application dated 31.05.2012. The proposed amendment reads as
under:-
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002811
CR-3472-2016 (O&M)
"6. That the alleged release-deed has not been signed by
Smt. Harwant Kaur. Smt. Harwant Kaur has always affixed
her signatures on the rent receipts and on various etectment
applications filed by her earlier against her tenants which
clearly shows that the alleged release-deed fabricated by the
applicant.
7. That the applicant has also come to know that a similar
has release-deed been manipulated in respect of a shop in
favour of the applicant which was under the tenancy of
Multani fruits and the same has been got vacated by the
applicant from Multani fruits on ground of personal
requirement. That shop is still lying vacant and has not been
used for any business so far. The applicant has concealed the
other properties available with him and has filed this
application by concealing the properties with ulterior motive.
Even otherwise under the provisions of Haryana Urban
(Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1973 a landlord cannot evict
more than one tenant on ground of personal requirement and
as such the present ejectment application on ground of
personal requirement is maintainable."
17. In reply to the aforesaid proposed amendments, the landlord
pleaded as under:-
"6. That the proposed Para No.6 for amendment of the
written statement as stated is absolutely wrong and hence
denied. The release-deed executed by Smt. Harwant Kaur is a
registered document and is quite legal and valid and moreover
the respondent/tenant has got no right under the law to
challenge the same.
7. That the proposed Para No.7 for amendment of the
written statement is absolutely wrong and hence denied. The
respondent/tenant was already know/knowledge of the alleged
shop in possession of the landlord/applicant/respondent before
filing the present application as he has already cross examined
the respondent on this ground. However, it is submitted that
the respondent/landlord is the owner of one shop which was
previously in possession of tenant Multani Fruits who has
died and after his death the same has been vacated and this
shop also was owned by Smt. Harwant Kaur who has
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002811
CR-3472-2016 (O&M)
transferred the same through registered release-deed favour of
applicant dated in 10.10.07. Photostat copy of the same is
attached herewith and as per release deed the area and
boundary of the shop which was in possession of Multani
Fruits as per registered release-deed is as under:-
East: 5'-8", Jagadhri Road,
West: 3', Common stair,
North: 17-3", Gall Share-e-am,
South: 17"-3", Shop/house,
Total measuring 8.31 Sq. Yards situated in the Main Bazar,
Jagadhri Road, Near Paper Mill Gate, Yamuna Nagar. But the
same is a very small shop and cannot be used for the business
of transport and is not at all suitable for the purpose of
transport business as the shop lying transport vacant is
situated in thickly populated commercial area and heavy
traffic i.e. trucks etc are not allowed to stand on the road side
and as such the said shop cannot be used for transport
business even under the municipal law and as such the alleged
vacant shop being very small shop and situated in thickly
populated commercial area has got no relevancy with the
personal bonafide need of the applicant. Moreover, the tenant
has got no right to dictate the terms and the landlord is the
best judge of his personal bonafide requirement. Moreover,
the applicant/tenants are also having an additional commercial
property in their possession in which they have been running a
School and separate transport business and as such the
applicant/tenant is liable to be ejected from the shop in
question."
18. The Rent Controller vide order dated 27.08.2012 dismissed
the application filed by the tenant observing as under:-
"xx xx
The present ejectment petition has been filed in the
year 2009 and issues were framed in on 19.01.2010.
Thereafter, petitioner has led entire evidence. Petitioner
stepped into witness box as AW2 and has been examined on
15.03.2011. In his cross-examination, petitioner has been put
question regarding the release-deed, power of attorney at
length. Petitioner has already been cross-examined at length
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002811
CR-3472-2016 (O&M)
with regard to shop situated at Sabji Mandi. Thus, petitioner
has already been cross-examined with respect to the
amendments which applicant wants to bring on file.
Thereafter, respondent has led its entire evidence
against petitioner. Respondent has entered into witness box as
RW2 and has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2. In para no.3 of his
affidavit, respondent has specifically stated that one shop in
the name of Multani Fruits was under tenancy and has been
recently vacated by the petitioner."
19. A perusal of the aforesaid orders reveals that the Rent
Controller dismissed the application holding that the shop in possession
of the landlord relatable to Multani Fruits as claimed by the tenant will
have no bearing on the facts of the present case, as the same came in
possession of the landlord recently. The aforesaid order passed by the
Rent Controller remained unchallenged. There is no evidence on record
to prove that the landlord was in possession of the shop vacated by
Multani Fruits, situated at Sabji Mandi on the day the eviction petition
was filed.
20. In view of above, this Court finds no ground to hold
landlord guilty of concealment. Finding recorded by Rent Controller are
without any basis.
21. Pure findings of fact have been returned by the Appellate
Authority. The findings recorded by the Rent Controller have been
rightly reversed after re-appreciating the evidence.
22. At this stage, Mr.Divanshu Jain, Advocate appearing for the
respondent-landlord brings to the notice of this Court that one Vimal
Sibbal, who appeared as RW-1 explicity admitted that landlord has no
other shop in his occupation within the Municipal limits of Yamuna
Nagar i.e. the urban area concerned. The said cross examination was
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002811
CR-3472-2016 (O&M)
recorded on 09.05.2011. The aforesaid being the admitted factual
position, this Court finds that the appellate authority rightly reversed the
findings recorded by the Rent Controller.
23. As a sequel of discussion held hereinabove, this Court does
not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is thus,
ordered to be dismissed.
24. Since the main case has been decided, pending
miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
08.01.2025
Dinesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : Yes
12 of 12
