Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrit Bansal vs M.L. Goyal And Another on 31 January, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CR No.4480 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(219-A)
CR No.4480 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 31.01.2014.
Amrit Bansal
......Petitioner
Versus
M.L. Goyal and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
SABINA, J.
Respondent had sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. The said petition was allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 21.09.2010. The order passed by the Rent Controller was upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 10.05.2012. Hence, the present petition by the tenant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on an earlier occasion, ejectment petition was filed by the landlord against the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.03 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.4480 of 2012 (O&M) -2- and the same was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC'). Hence, the second petition seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity was liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that earlier ejectment petition was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC which was filed by M.L. Goyal and his wife Sarswati Devi for expansion of their business. However, now the property in question had come to the share of the petitioners in a family settlement. Due to this reason, the second ejectment petition was maintainable. The premises in question was required by the landlord for his personal use as he wanted to expand his business of readymade garments. In fact, the landlord wanted to renovate the entire building and run his business in the same premises. In support of arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.R. Narayan Swamy Vs. B. Francis Jagan 2001(2) Rent LR 268 wherein it was held as under:-
"In our view, the High Court ought to have considered the fact that in eviction proceedings under the Rent Act the ground of bona fide requirement or non- payment of rent is a recurring cause and, therefore, landlord is not precluded from instituting fresh proceeding. In an eviction suit on the ground of bona fide` requirement the genuineness of the said ground is to be Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.03 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.4480 of 2012 (O&M) -3- decided on the basis of requirement on the date of the suit. Further, even if a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement is filed and is dismissed it cannot be held that once a question of necessity is decided against the landlord he will not have a bona fide and genuine necessity ever in future. In the subsequent proceedings, if such claim is established by cogent evidence adduced by the landlord, decree for possession could be passed. {Re: K.S. Sundararaju Chettiar vs. M.R. Ramachandra Naidu, 1994(2) RCR (Rent) 236 (SC) : 1994(5) SCC 14 (para 10) and Surajmal vs. Radhe Shyam, 1988 (3) SCC 18].
"The aforesaid rule would have no application in a proceeding initiated for recovering the suit premises on the ground of bona fide requirement which is a recurring cause. Order XXIII rule 1(4)(b) precludes the plaintiff from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject matter or such part of the claim which the plaintiff has withdrawn. In a suit for eviction of a tenant under the Rent Act on the ground of bona fide requirement even though the premises remains the same, the subject matter which is cause of action may be different. The ground for eviction in the subsequent proceedings is based upon requirement on the date of the said suit even Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.03 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.4480 of 2012 (O&M) -4- though it relates to the same property. Dealing with similar contention in Vallabh Das vs. Dr. Madanlal and Others [(1970) 1 SCC 761)], this Court observed thus:-
The expression "subject-matter" is not defined in the Civil Procedure Code. It does not mean property. That expression has a reference to a right in the property which the plaintiff seeks to enforce. That expression includes the cause of action and the relief claimed. Unless the cause of action and the relief claimed in the second suit are the same as in the first suit, it cannot be said that the subject-matter of the second suit is the same as that in the previous suit."
In the present case, respondent-landlord had sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. It was the case of the landlord that he wanted to extend his business. Landlord appeared in the witness box and stated that he required the shop-cum-office in question including the demised premises for his personal use. Respondent further stated that he was running the business of readymade garments in the half portion on the ground-floor of the SCO in question which was insufficient for running his business. He further stated that some of the tenants had already vacated the portion in their occupation and he wanted to renovate the entire building and run his business in the same.
It is settled proposition of law that the landlord is the Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.03 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.4480 of 2012 (O&M) -5- best judge qua his needs. In the present case, in some portion of the SCO in question, petitioner is already running his business and now he wants to extend his business and use the entire SCO for his business purposes. The fact that family settlement between the parties had not been acted upon fails to advance the case of the petitioner. There is no dispute that the petitioner is co-owner of the premises in question and could therefore, seek possession of the premises in question on the ground of personal need. The fact that half portion of the basement is lying vacant also fails to advance the case of the petitioner, as the case of the landlord is that he requires the entire SCO for his own personal use with a view to extend his business after renovating the same. In these circumstances, the courts below had rightly ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord.
In view of the decision of the Apex Court in N.R. Narayan Swamy's case (supra), the ejectment petition filed by the landlord could be said to be maintainable.
Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE January 31, 2014.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.03 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document