Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Janak Dulari Khosla vs Jaswinder Singh And Ors. on 28 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2004)136PLR626
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. The petitioner landlady filed an application for eviction alleging that rented land in dispute was let out to Nagina Singh, predecessor of the respondents at an yearly rent of Rs. 150/- on 21.1.1956.
2. One of the grounds for eviction, which remains relevant for the purpose of this petition was the bonafide need for starting fire wood business by the petitioner landlady. It was alleged that she had not vacated any similar rented land in the urban area and had only one more plot, which was not suitable for the business of the petitioner.
3. The respondents contested the eviction petition and inter alia issue No. 2 was framed to the effect whether the applicant required the premises in question for her business needs.
4. The trial Court accepted the grounds for eviction put forward by the petitioner and ordered eviction. It was held that the need of the applicant was proved to be bona fide. On appeal by the tenant-respondents, the view of the trial Court was reversed. It was held that statement of the landlady and her witnesses was that she wanted to start fire wood business on the land was insufficient to prove her bonafide need. She had no background of business and had worked as a teacher and retired from service. She was un-married and there is nothing to show that income from pension is insufficient. Hence, this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the approach by the appellate authority was erroneous and bonafide of the landlady could not be doubted merely because of lack of experience in the business. He relied on decisions reported in Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary and Company, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 534. para 10 to submit that landlord was the best judge of his requirement, Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkune, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2226 para 11 and 12 to the effect that even in absence of experience, need of landlord may be bonafide, Raj Kumar Khaitan and Ors. v. Bibi Zubaida Khatun and Anr., A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 576 para 3 to the effect that precise nature of business is not required to be stated by the landlord, Chandrakant Bhalchandra Malvadkar and Anr. v. Hiralal Muchand Shah, 1984(1) R.C.R. 48 (Bombay) Paras 8 and 9 to the effect that if landlord did not use the premises personally, the tenant could seek re-induction in possession and Raghunath G. Panhale v. Chaganlal Sundarji and Company, 1992(2) R.C.R. 485 (S.C.) para 9 to the effect that need of requirement under the statute was not equivalent to dire or absolute or compelling necessity. Requirement could not be unfounded or unreasonable or mere design.
6. Counsel for the tenant supported the finding of the lower appellate Court.
7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record of the case.
8. Once the landlady has pleaded personal need to run business in the premises and has entered into the witness box in support of her case, she cannot be disbelieved unless need pleaded by her could be unfounded, unreasonable or fanciful or unless there was material to show that the need was not genuine. The appellate authority was, therefore, in error in setting aside the finding of the Rent Controller holding that the bonafide need of the landlady stood proved.
9. For the above reasons, this petition is allowed. Judgment of the appellate authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller is restored. However, decree for eviction will not be executed for a period of three months, so that the tenant who has been running his business for the last about 50 years on the land in question, can make alternative arrangements subject to the condition that the tenant will pay all arrears of rent within one month and continues to pay future rent/use and occupation charges by 10th of every succeeding month and will not part with possession of suit premises in favour of any one else.