Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs Sandeep Aggarwal & Ors on 12 December, 2014
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
C.R. No. 5759 of 2014 (O & M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 5759 of 2014 (O & M)
Date of decision: 12.12.2014
Rakesh Kumar ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sandeep Aggarwal and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.
Challenge in the present revision petition filed under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short ('the Act') is to the order of ejectment dated 27.02.2013 passed by the Rent Controller, Naraingarh, which has been upheld by the Appellate Authority, Ambala, on 20.05.2014. The eviction has been ordered on the ground of bona fide need of respondent-landlord.
The premises in question is a shop situated in Ward No. 9, Main Bazar, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala which was let out to the petitioner at Rs.290 per month. The ejectment application was filed on the ground that the adjoining shop was required for the bona fide use and occupation and the landlord was doing business in the shop which was on the south of the shop in question. The shop was required for expansion of the business since the front of the shop in occupation of the landlord was only 5 feet. The landlord had 4 other shops which were situated far away from which shop the petitioner was doing his business and the said shops SAILESH RANJAN 2014.12.31 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.R. No. 5759 of 2014 (O & M) 2 were situated in Ward No. 4 and were in occupation of tenants and in one shop on another street in Ward No. 9, the wife of the landlord was running a chakki. Accordingly, eviction was sought after making the necessary averments regarding the mandatory provisions of the Act that the landlord was not occupying any other building in the urban estate concerned and had neither vacated any such shop or building without sufficient cause. The tenant was also stated to be in arrears of rent w.e.f. 18.12.2007.
The defence of the petitioner-tenant was that rent was paid to the father of the petitioner and he be put to strict proof that he was the owner. In the earlier proceedings inter se the parties, a finding had been given that the shops in question belonged to the Municipal Committee and he was having sufficient accommodation and was running business of chakki in the name of his wife in another shop adjoining the same.
The petitioner Rakesh Kumar appeared himself as RW-1 whereas the respondent examined himself as PW-1.
The finding regarding the arrears of rent were that no rent was due and, therefore, ejectment could not be ordered on that ground. It was noticed that the landlord required the premises for expansion of the business as the front of the shop was small and his father had expired leaving behind 4 sons and his wife as legal representatives. It was noticed that respondent was doing his own business in electrical goods and the petitioner had been the tenant of his father and has been paying rent and, therefore, the need of the respondent was genuine as he wanted to expand his business. The law being clear on the landlord being the best judge of his personal need and requirement and the factum that the shop in which the landlord was running the business was owned by Sandeep Aggarwal, eviction was ordered. SAILESH RANJAN 2014.12.31 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.R. No. 5759 of 2014 (O & M) 3
The Appellate Authority noticed the location of the two shops in question and the fact that the premises were required for expansion of business and the other shops were in a different ward and accordingly, upheld the judgment of the Rent Controller on the ground that the landlord was the best judge and had proved his bona fide requirement. The appeal was dismissed in such circumstances.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that there were enough shops available as per the case of the landlord himself and, therefore, his bona fide requirement was missing.
The position has been settled regarding the fact that the landlord is in bona fide need and requirement and it cannot be questioned and where there is only a mere whim or desire, the ejectment is to be denied. In the present case, the landlord is doing business in the adjoining shop. The Courts have rightly placed themselves in the position of the landlord and come to the conclusion that it was a sincere and an honest desire and the requirement was a practical requirement. The Apex Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, 1999 (6) SCC 222 examined the concept of bona fide requirement of the landlord and held that the Courts do not thrust their own wisdom on the choice of the landlord. The requirement of the landlord who was a doctor was for his son who was a practising doctor. The Apex Court held that the stance of the tenant that the family should shift to another house owned by them 7-8 kilometers away was not justified and neither could the law compel the landlord to shift to a different house in a different locality so as to permit the tenant to live in the tenanted premises. If the landlord wished to live in the comfort of his own house, he could not be required to squeeze himself and protect the tenant's occupancy. SAILESH RANJAN 2014.12.31 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.R. No. 5759 of 2014 (O & M) 4
It is also a settled position of fact that after the passing of the order of the Appellate Authority, the landlord-respondent has been successful in taking possession of the demised premises, in execution proceedings.
Accordingly, keeping in mind the factum that concurrent findings of fact have been recorded, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope for interference and it has been settled by the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh, 2014 (9) SCC 78 that this Court is not sitting as a Court of Appeal. The Courts below have rightly exercised the jurisdiction and there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders which would warrant interference and the present revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
12.12.2014 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
shivani/sailesh JUDGE
SAILESH RANJAN
2014.12.31 12:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document