Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana Through Advisor Civil ... vs Amrit Pal Singh S/O Gurdial Singh on 14 January, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CR No. 182 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CR No. 182 of 2013
Date of decision January 14, 2013
State of Haryana through Advisor Civil Aviation
....... Petitioner
Vs.
Amrit Pal Singh s/o Gurdial Singh
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Kartar Singh, DAG., Haryana
for the petitioner.
****
K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. The revision is by the State challenging the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority in reversal of the judgment of the Rent Controller. The landlord claimed to be a recent purchaser and after the purchase he had issued a notice seeking for a higher rent for the property but the tenant was not prepared to pay a higher rent. He had subsequently issued a notice stating that he was a computer engineer and he explained in the evidence that he wanted to establish a computer teaching academy. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that the initial demand was only for increase of rent and when it was not paid he had altered his stand for personal necessity and therefore the need could be bona fide. The Appellate Court set aside the finding by observing that there was nothing wrong for a landlord who purchased a property from the previous owner and seek to obtain an optimum rent and when that CR No. 182 of 2013 2 was not being offered, the landlord would be justified to seek for ejectment for starting his own business. Learned counsel for the State argues that even at the time of trial the landlord was stating that if the State would pay a higher rent for the rent period he may consider the same. This according to him, showed that the landlord was not bona fide. I find nothing unusual for a landlord to be pleading for a higher rent and if it was not possible to secure the same to look for a viable and optimal method of securing a higher return for the investment in the property that he has made. Starting a business would be one such method of augmenting his income. If the Appellate Court has adopted such a reasoning, I will not find it to be perverse to subject it for a different consideration in revision.
2. The order passed is maintained and the revision petition is dismissed. Time for eviction, four months.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 14, 2013 archana