Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pritpal Singh vs Devinder Kumar And Anr. on 18 February, 2008
Equivalent citations: (2008)151PLR342
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: Rajive Bhalla
JUDGMENT Rajive Bhalla, J.
1. The petitioner, challenges an order dated 19.12.2006 passed by the learned Rent Controller, as also the order dated 7.1.2007 passed the Appellate Authority, Fatehgarh Sahib directing his ejectment on the ground of personal necessity.
2. The respondent-landlord, filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), praying for ejectment of the petitioner, on the grounds of personal necessity, failure to occupy the tenanted premises since 2001 and on the plea of non payment of rent. The petitioner contested the ejectment petition, whereupon the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner requires the demised premises for his personal necessity? OPA
2. Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the demised premises as the same are lying closed since September 2001 as alleged? OPA
3. Whether the tender by the respondent is complete and valid? OPR
4. Whether this petition is not maintainable as alleged? OPR
5. Whether there exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent? OPA
6. Relief.
3. The learned trial Court decided issues No. 2 and 3 in favour of the petitioner but directed his ejectment on issue No. 1, namely; that the landlord required the demised premises for his personal necessity.
4. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner filed an appeal. Vide order dated 7.12.2007, the Appellate Authority, dismissed the appeal.
5. Counsel for the petitioner asserts that the personal necessity pleaded is not bonafide. The respondent's plea of insufficient accommodation, based on an assertion that his family consists of three adult sons their wives and children, is factually incorrect. The respondent's sons do not reside with him. Prem Kumar, his elder son is employed in a bank at Shimla. Arvind Kumar, his second son is a Central Government employee and is settled in Chandigarh, whereas his third son Sanjay Kumar is a Labour Law consultant, working at Parwanoo for the last 12-13 years. It is submitted that in view of these facts, the learned Courts below, were not justified in accepting the plea of personal necessity.
6. Another plea, put forth by counsel for the petitioner is that as the demised premises is a shop, situated in a market, it cannot be got vacated for residential personal necessity. The demised premises have no connection with the residential portion of the building, apart from a common wall. The Courts below, therefore, erred in accepting the respondents prayer for ejectment.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. The learned Rent Controller, as also the Appellate Authority have returned concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner. They have concurrently held that the necessity pleaded by the landlord is bonafide, as the accommodation in his occupation is insufficient. It is also held that the landlord's pleadings and evidence successfully satisfy the test of bonafide requirement. The landlord has established insufficient accommodation in his possession, the fact that his family consists of three adult sons, their wives and children and the bonafide need to open an office for his son, who is a Labour Law Consultant. The site plan Ex.A-1 relied upon by the respondent-landlord shows him in possession of one room, a kitchen, a toilet and a bathing area. Though his sons are not residing in Fatehgarh Sahib, they must obviously be visiting their father, along with their family. Even otherwise, the fact that the landlord is in occupation of only one room, suggests an element of bonafide need and not a mere wish or desire for further accommodation. The accommodation in his possession is certainly insufficient and, therefore, the Courts below rightly held in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner.
8. As regards the plea that the shop in dispute is commercial in nature and the petitioner-tenant, therefore, cannot be evicted for its user as a residence, both the learned Rent Controller, as also the Appellate Authority have held against the petitioner. It has been held that the property in dispute is a residential premises. The learned Courts below relied upon the testimony of AW-1 V.K. Pathak, Draftsman, to fortify the aforementioned conclusion as they held that the shop is a part of the residential building and constitutes one unit, the shop having been carved out of the residential portion. These findings of fact returned by the Rent Controller and duly affirmed by the Appellate Authority do not warrant interference.
9. In view of what has been stated herein above, as the petitioner has failed to establish any error of law or of jurisdiction, on the part of the learned Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority, the concurrent findings returned by the Courts below do not call for interference.
Dismissed.