Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kewal Krishan vs Amrik Singh on 30 November, 2000
Author: J.S.Khehar
Bench: J.S. Khehar
ORDER J.S.Khehar,J.
1.Amrik Singh, respondent-landlord, filed ejectment application against Kewal Krishan, petitioner-tenant, seeking his eviction on two grounds, firstly, it was alleged that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.1996 and secondly, it was alleged that the premises was required to set up an independent business for his son, Jaspreet Singh, who was a Graduate of 25 years and was unemployed.
2. The arrears of rent were tendered by the petitioner-tenant during the proceedings before the Rent Controller, whereafter the respondent-landlord did not press his claim on account of the plea based on non-payment of rent. The plea based on the requirement of the premises for the personal use of his son was accepted by the Rent Controller vide order dated 27.3.1999. The petitioner-tenant was resultnatly required to vacant the premises within two months of the order passed by the Rent Controller.
3. Dissatisfied with the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority as a matter of fact arrived at the conclusion that the respondent-landlord had fully substantiated his bona fide claim based on the requirement of his son. The Appellate Authority while endorsing the determination rendered by the Rent Controller on issue No. 2, required the petitioner-tenant to deliver the vacant possession of the shop in question to the respondent-landlord within a period of two months of his order.
4. The petitioner-tenant has approached this Court impugning the order of the Rent Controller, dated 27.3.1999 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 27.9.1999.
5.The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant is that Amrik Singh, respondent-landlord, filed an ejectment application on 27.8.1999 against M/s. General Electronics seeking eviction of another tenant in the close vicinity of the shop leased out to the petitioner-tenant. In the said application, on e of the grounds seeking the eviction was that the said premises was required by the respondent-landlord to set up has own business. The aforesaid petition filed by the landlord against M/s. General Electronics was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide order dated 19.1.1999. The ejectment application against the petitioner-tenant was filed on 21.4.1998. In the instant rent application it was claimed that the premises was required by the respondent-landlord for setting up an independent business for his son. The present C.R. No. 5801 of 1999 is the outcome of the ejectment application filed on 21.4.1998. A third ejectment application is stated to have been filed by Harminder Kaur, wife of the respondent-landlord Amrik Singh on 11.5.1999 against M/s Gagan Traders. In the said ejectment application, eviction has been sought in respect of a premises in the same vicinity as the premises leased out to the petitioner. One of the grounds raised for seeking eviction in the ejectment application filed by Harminder Kaur is that the premises is required by her for her own use and occupation i.e.for running business of Food and Nutrition Fruit and Vegetables preservation as she is a certificate holder in Industria lEntrepreneurship Course conducted by the Small Industrial Services Institute. It is further submitted that Harminder Kaur, wife of the respondent-landlord Amrik Singh sold half share in a commercial property in Bharatnagar Chowk, which is a prime locality in Ludhiana, which compromises of 8 shops by sale deed dated 24.3.1990 (three days before the passing of the order by the Rent Controller). The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant on a cumulative assessment of the facts, narrated above, has contested the conclusions drawn by the Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority in respect of the bona fides of the respondent-landlord's desire to get the premises vacated for his own use and occupation.
6.The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is indeed impressive on first blush. However, when examined closely, it is certainly devoid of merit. In this behalf, my conclusions are based on the following reasons:
7. A landlord has the right to claim eviction in respect of as many buildings/shops as he desires. His claim is to be evaluated on the basis of evidence and if found tenable/justified, his claim may be upheld in respect of one or more buildings/shops. While evaluating the claim of the respondent-landlord Amrik Singh in the first ejectment application filed by him on 27.8.1997 against M/s General Electronics, the Rent Controller did not accept his claim and accordingly, the said ejectment application was dismissed on 19.1.1999. The third ejectment application filed by Harminder Kaur, wife of the respondent-landlord Amrik Singh undoubtedly has to be evaluated on the basis of her requirement, if she is able to substantiate her pleas on the basis of her(personal necessity) may be upheld. The claim of Harminder Kaur is liable of be considered shorn of the consequences of other ejectment applications filed by the respondent-landlord, Amrik Singh because the ejectment application filed by harminder Kaur is in respect of property owned by her and on the basis of her own personal necessity.So far as the sale of commercial property by Harminder Kaur in the prime locality of Ludhiana is concerned, the issue was examined extensively by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority felt that the aforesaid sale of the commercial property by Harminder Kaur, wife of the respondent-landlord Amrik Singh had no effect on the claim made by the respondent-landlord for his son Jaspreet Singh Khurana in view of the fact that all the shops in the commercial property sold by Harminder Kaur were under occupation of the tenants. In my considered view, the aforesaid conclusion besides being reasonable was fully justified.
8. On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant relied on a judgment in Joginder Singh of Amritsar v. Nand Kishore Anand and others, 1984 HRR 87: 1983(2) RCR (Rent) 429., wherein this Court rejected the claim of the landlord on account of the fact that no details of business were given in the ejectment application nor any evidence was furnished to prove the want of the landlord to set up a business. Referring to the averments made in the pleadings of the instant case, it was stated that the landlord had merely mentioned that the landlord required the premises for setting up business for his son. Details of business, which he proposed to set up for his son were not given. While advancing the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the petitioner drew pointed attention of this Court to the ejectment application filed by Harminder Kaur, wife of the landlord on 11.5.1999. In the said ejectment application, she said given details of the business which she would set up the she had also given details about her ability to run the said business (details already referred to above). It is accordingly submitted that in the absence of exact particulars of the business proposed to be commenced by Jaspreet Singh Khurana in the ejectment application and in the absence of proof that he had experience to handle the same, the plea raised on account of personal necessity is liable to be dismissed in view of the aforesaid decision. To substantiate the aforesaid claim, reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant a judgment in Amar Nath of Hoshiarpur v. Naraian Das, 1985(1) RCR (Rent) 82 (P&H) : 1985 HRR 104, wherein it was held that in a petition filed under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, there has to be cogent evidence on record as to the particular business which the landlord intends to do. A bald statement of the landlord without any other evidence cannot be considered as adequate proof to establish a bona fide requirement.
9. As against the above submission of the learned counsel for the tenant, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord relied on a decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Khaitan and others v. Bibi Zubaida Khatun and another, 1995(1) RCR (Rent) 495 (SC): AIR 1995 SC 576. Pointed attention of this Court was invited to the following observation made by the Apex Court:
"It is clear form the averments made in the above quoted paragraphs that the plaintiffs asserted that there was no other means of livelihood with them and as such they wanted to set up their own business in the premises in dispute. The High Court, however, came to the conclusion that apart from above quoted pleadings it was necessary to plead the nature of the business which the appellants-plaintiffs wanted to start in the premises. We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error. It was not necessary for the appellants-landlords to indicate the precise nature of the business which they intended to start in the premises. Even if the nature of business would have been indicated nobody could bind the landlords to start the same business in the premises after it was vacated."
10. In view of the determination of the apex Court extracted above, ti is clear that it is not incumbent upon the landlord to express the precise business which is sought to be set up in the premises.
11. It would be unfair to the landlord counsel for the petitioner-tenant if while disposing of the instant petition, I do not notices his two other submission. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, that it was imperative on the respondent-landlord to establish before the Rent Controller that he had sufficient means to establish the business in Electronics goods for his son. It was submitted that evidence on the aforesaid aspect is wholly lacking. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that it was also essential for the respondent-landlord to establish that his son Jaspreet Singh had earlier experience in the business of Electronics goods.
12. So far as the first contention is concerned, it has been admitted by the petitioner-tenant himself that the respondent-landlord is man of means. He must, therefore, be deemed to have the financial means to establish the said business for his son. In so far as the plea of previous experience is concerned, the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dattatrava Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkune, 1999(1) RCR 508, wherein the apex Court observed as under:-
"If a person wants to start new business of his own it may be to his own advantage if acquires experience in that line. But to say that any venture of a person in the business field without acquiring past experience reflects lack of his bona fide is a fallacious and unpragmatic approach. Many a business have flourished in this country by leaps and bounds which were started by novice in the field; and many other business ventures have gone haywire despite vast experience to the credit of the propounders. The opinion of the learned single Judge that acquisition of sufficient know-how is a pre-condition for even proposing to start any business, if gains approval as a proposition of law, is likely to shatter the initiative of young talents and deter new entrepreneurs from entering any field of business or commercial activity. Experience can be earned even while the business is in progress. It is too pedantic a norm to be formulated that "no experience no venture."
13. It has to be ascertained on the basis of evidence whether or not, the plea of bona fide personal necessity has been substantiated on the basis of the evidence recorded. In this behalf, in so far as the present controversy is concerned it is not a matter of dispute that at the time of filing of the ejectment application, son of the respondent-landlord was about 25 years old. He was unmarried and unemployed. He had already obtained Bachelor's degree in Commerce at the said juncture. The aforesaid fact was established on record by the respondent -landlord Amrik Singh, who had himself appeared as a witness and also by his son Jaspreet Singh Khurana, who had also appeared as a witness. The petitioner-tenant is stated to have admitted during the course of his cross-examination that the respondent-landlord was a person of means and on that account, it was concluded that here could be no doubt that he could with the finances available with him set up a business in electronic goods for his unemployed son, Jaspreet Singh Khurana. In view of the factual position recorded above, I have no hesitation to hold that the conclusions recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in respect of the bona fide personal necessity of the respondent-landlord are fully justified.
14.For the reasons recorded above, I have find no merit in this petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
15. Appeal dismissed .