Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs Ram Singh And Ors. on 9 December, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2006)142PLR645
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The landlord is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the authorities below, whereby the petition for ejectment under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") was dismissed.
2. The petitioner purchased the property in dispute i.e. Nohra, vide registered sale deed dated 23.09.1981. The respondent was a tenant over the property for the last 18 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-, It is the case of the landlord that the Nohra was given for residential purposes but the respondent tenant has installed a factory in it. The respondent has effected material alterations in the building as in the hall room one furnace has been erected and the roof has been broken to adjust the said furnace. The latrine has been demolished and the same has been converted into a water tank. One ventilator in the hall room has been closed. The roof of the verandah has been demolished. An iron shed has been erected in front of the hall gate. One door has been opened by demolishing the almirah and one additional latrine has been constructed on the roof of the hall room. The petitioner also alleged that the premises are lying locked for the last more than six months and that the petitioner wants to settle at Bahadurgarh and, thus, pleade'd bona fide requirement of the disputed premises.
3. It is the stand of the respondent that the tenanted building is not a residential No-hra but is a non-residential building, which is being used for manufacturing biscuits from the very inception of tenancy. It was denied that the premises was lying closed or there was any material alteration.
4. The controversy raised before the authorities below revolve around whether the building was let out for residential or non-residential purposes. If the building was let out for residential purposes, the ground of personal necessity was available as per the law then existed. The authorities below have found that the landlord has failed to prove that the premises were given for residential purposes and, therefore, the ground of personal necessity is not available. The ground of change of user did not find any favour with the authorities below. As regards the eviction on the ground of material alterations, it was found that though the respondent has not disputed that he has done some alterations i.e., by erecting a furnace and demolishing the verandah but such fact is not sufficient to grant an order of eviction.
5. Before this Court, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that even if the petitioner is not able to prove the purpose of letting of the premises for residential purpose, still the respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord from a non-residential building. It is argued that after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harbilas Rai Bansal v. State of Punjab (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 227 (S.C.), as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Vij v. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi and Ors. (2005-3)141 P.L.R. 676 (S.C.), the ground of eviction on the basis of bona fide requirement for use and occupation of the landlord is now available even in respect of non-residential buildings. Both the authorities below have not doubted the bona fide requirement but have dismissed the eviction petition only on the ground that such ground is not available as the building has been let out for non-residential purposes. The said reasoning is not legally sustainable. Still further, it is alleged that as the landlord himself has admitted that he has raised the furnace, therefore, this fact itself is sufficient to prove the impairment so as to diminish the value and utility of the building.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no categorical finding of the authorities below regarding bona fide requirement of the premises and, therefore, such question cannot be gone by this Court. Still further, the landlord has pleaded his bona fide requirement as the climate of Ludhiana is not suitable to him but there is no evidence to that effect. In fact, it has been deposed by AWI Dinesh Kumar that he wants he building for his residence since the conditions in Punjab are bad. In view of cont adiction between the pleadings and the evidence, the stand of the landlord that he requires the premises in dispute for his bona fide requirement cannot be accepted. Still further, the erection of a furnace is for better utilization of the tenanted building. It is also submitted that such furnace was erected long back since the time of inception of tenancy and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek eviction since he has purchased the property only a few months before the filing of the ejectment petition.
7. Both the authorities below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the premises in dispute was not a residential building. The petitioner has purchased the property in October, 1981 and sought eviction by filing the present eviction petition in October, 1982. The respondent is running a biscuit factory in the disputed premises for the last 16-17 years. The authorities below have discussed the evidence such as the statement of AW4 Krishan Lal who has deposed that the electric connection in the building is commercial as well as the statement of RW7 Laxmi Narain, Clerk, Municipal Committee, to show that the premises in dispute was commercial in nature. It has been found that using the word house in the site plan Exhibit AW7/1 and in the photostat copy of sale deed Exhibit AW1/A would not show that the property was let out for residential purposes. In view of the said evidence, the findings recorded by the authorities below cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality warranting interference in revision petition.
8. Since it has been found that the building let out was not a residential building, therefore, the landlord is entitled to seek eviction on the ground of bona fide use and occupation. In the petition, the landlord has pleaded that the climate in Ludhiana is not suitable but in evidence he has deposed that he wants to shift on account of bad conditions in Punjab. The reference to bad conditions in Punjab is to the days of terrorism with which the State of Punjab was gripped at the time of filing of the petition when he appeared as a witness in the year 1984. Therefore, there is contradiction in the pleadings and evidence and, thus, the landlord has failed to prove his bona fide requirements. Still further, it has been found that the building let out is a non-residential building. But the landlord intends to use it for residential purposes. It has been held by this Court in Par-' meshwari Devi v. Krishan Chancier 3 2003 Haryana Rent Reporter 197, and Slate Bank of Paliala v. S. Zulzuauar Singh Virk and Ors. (2003-2)134 Punjab Law Reporter 112, that a non-residential building can be got vacated by the landlord only for non-residential purposes. The said judgments are based on Supreme Court judgment in Attar Singh v. Inder Kumar (1967)69 Punjab Law Reporter 83. The said judgment considered pari materia provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Therefore, the ground of bona fide requirement of a non-residential building for residential purposes is not available to the landlord.
9. The only other argument which requires to be dealt with is the material impair-, merit of the value and utility of the building with the erection of furnace in the premises in dispute. Admittedly, the landlord has purchased the property in the year 1981. The tenant was inducted more than 16-17 years prior to purchase of the property by the landlord. It is not the case of the landlord that the tenant has committed such act as are likely to materially impair the value and utility of the building after the purchase of the property by the petitioner. The furnace was already in existence when the petitioner purchased the property in dispute. Therefore, such ground of eviction is not available to the petitioner, who has purchased the property in dispute with his eyes open as to the nature of the construction at the time of its purchase. Even, the previous landlord could not seek the eviction of the tenant, as he would have deemed to waive the right of eviction because of long user of the premises with such alteration. For such acts, the written consent of the landlord : not contemplated.
10. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, 1 do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the authorities below which may warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court.