Punjab-Haryana High Court
B.D.Ohri And Others vs Deepak Sohi And Others on 13 March, 2014
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.4558 of 2001
Date of Decision :13.3.2014
B.D.Ohri and others
....Petitioners
Versus
Deepak Sohi and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
Present: Mr. Uttam Datt, Advocate with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate & Mr. Manoj Ohri, Advocate for the petitioners.
None for the respondents.
.....
MAHESH GROVER.J. This is a landlords' petition where the orders of the learned Rent Controller dated 24.3.1999 and that of the Appellate Authority dated 2.2.2001 are impugned.
The question before this Court is limited to the determination of bona fide need of the landlord.
In rent proceedings initiated by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners the demised premises described as situated in Chandigarh were attempted to be got vacated from the respondents, who are tenants therein, on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. Since the rent was paid, the issue of non-payment of rent was rendered redundant leaving the Court to examine the issue of personal necessity only.
Unfortunately during the pendency of the rent proceedings before the Rent Controller Shri Gurdas Mal, who was the owner of the house and landlord as well, died. The present petitioners were then Singh Daljit impleaded as parties being the legal representatives of the deceased. 2014.03.19 16:41 I attest to the accuracy of this document CR No.4558 of 2001 -2- The learned Rent Controller concluded that since Gurdas Mal has expired, the personal need would also stand extinguished on his death. The Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside as the courts have not appreciated the fact that besides the personal need of their deceased father the needs of other members of the family were also expressed in the petition with supportive evidence, but the same was totally ignored by both the courts below.
There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the record.
A perusal of the rent petition would indicate the need expressed by the landlord and it would be necessary to extract the same herebelow :
"4. The petitioner was working as a Reader in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and was living with his youngest son Vipin Kumar who was aged about 18 years in the year 1967. He was killed as a passer by with a bullet injury in Sector 7, Chandigarh. At that time two elder sons of the petitioner were employed in Delhi High Court, Delhi and the petitioner and his wife, could not withstand shock and loneliness caused by the death of their above named son and, therefore, the petitioner sought transfer of his services to Delhi High Court. His request was allowed and he was sent on deputation to Delhi High Court from where he retired in the year 1969.
Singh Daljit 2014.03.19 16:41 I attest to the accuracy of this document CR No.4558 of 2001 -3-
5. That the petitioner has been living in Delhi since 1967 with his wife, who died in December 1992.
6. That after the death of his wife, the petitioner, in his advanced age, has been feeling lonely without his life partner and decided that he would live in his own house i.e. H.No.655, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh to pass his remaining life. He requested the respondent several times to vacate the tenancy premises as he requires the same for his bonafide use and occupation, but the respondent has not vacated the same despite several promises and hence as a last resort, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present petition.
7. That the eldest son of the petitioner namely Shri B.D.Ohri, who is presently posted as Court Master in Delhi High Court is retiring in July 1997 from his service and wants to come to Chandigarh and live with the petitioner. Shri Manoj Kumar Ohri son of Shri B.D.Ohri, who is presently a student of second year of LL.B.Course in Campus Law Centre of Delhi University, would be able to complete his law course next year and he will also shift with his father to Chandigarh to start his practice as a lawyer.
8. That Shri B.D.Ohri has great affinity with Chandigarh, where he was born and brought up and wants to lead his remaining life after retirement in Chandigarh in the service of his aged father. He has no residential house anywhere in India.
9. That the environs of Delhi are highly polluted and it is considered as fourth most polluted city of the world. Singh Daljit 2014.03.19 16:41 I attest to the accuracy of this document CR No.4558 of 2001 -4- Compared to Delhi, the atmosphere of Chandigarh is highly clean and this is also one of the reasons that the petitioner wants to lead his remaining life in his own house in Chandigarh."
Once the landlord expresses his need in elaborate terms, then the Court is required to look into this aspect by taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the factors pleaded in support of the need expressed. The Court cannot substitute its own opinion and travel into the realm of probabilities and examine the feasibility of such a need expressed by the landlord. It has to view the need of the landlord strictly from his perspective.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratap Rai Tanwani v. Uttam Chand 2004(2) RentLR 708 while placing reliance on the observations made in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta 1992(2) RCR (Rent) 141 S.C. has held as under :
"The only way of peeping into the mind of the landlord is an exercise undertaken by the judge of facts by placing himself in the armchair of the landlord and then posing a question to himself - Whether in the given facts, substantiated by the landlord, the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest - If the answer be in the positive, the need is bonafide."
The facts of the case would indicate that the deceased landlord had only one house in the entire country and was desirous of living there with his son who was nearing retirement and his grandson who was aspiring to become a lawyer and intended to start his practice here in Chandigarh. Both the courts have gone wrong in substituting their own perspective in Singh Daljit 2014.03.19 16:41 I attest to the accuracy of this document CR No.4558 of 2001 -5- this regard and using imaginary arguments based on conjectures.
The law in this regard speaks to the contrary. In Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 1998(2) RCR 533, the Supreme Court observed as follows.
"14. The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms of the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
Similarly, in Atma S.Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh 2003(1) RCR 42 it has been observed as under :-
"The landlord is the best judge of his residential requirements. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own".
When the necessity of the landlord and his family as noticed in Singh Daljit 2014.03.19 16:41 I attest to the accuracy of this document CR No.4558 of 2001 -6- the foregoing part of the judgment based on the extract of the rent petition is evaluated in the backdrop of the settled proposition of law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then I am of the view that the personal necessity expressed by the landlord stands adequately established. The Court is further of the opinion that in case a landlord expresses his desire to reside in his only house, then such a desire and need of the landlord would necessarily converge and it cannot be said that a person's desire to live in his own house, particularly the only one he has, is merely a desire and not a need.
That apart, it has come in evidence that the son of the deceased landlord was to retire shortly and the premises were intended for his post retiral residence. The desire of the family to live together in the only house it had was a strong factor in favour of the landlord's need and could not have been brushed aside cursorily.
For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is accepted, impugned orders are set aside and the respondent is directed to be evicted from the premises in question.
13.3.2014 (MAHESH GROVER)
dss JUDGE
Singh Daljit
2014.03.19 16:41
I attest to the accuracy
of this document