Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiv Shankar House Pvt. Ltd. vs Anant Pal Singh Grewal on 18 November, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1998)118PLR211
JUDGMENT N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 6.9.1993 affirming that of the Rent Controller whereby the petitioner-tenant has been ordered to be evicted from the premises in dispute on the ground that the same are bona fide required by the landlord-respondent for his own use and occupation.
2. Shri Anant Pal Singh Grewal (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) is the owner of double storeyed farm house in question in which the petitioner was inducted as a tenant as per rent agreement dated 25.5.1980. The tenanted premises consist of two bed rooms, one dining room, one garrage, one kitchen and one toilet and these were let out to the petitioner for doing business. The landlord sought ejectment of his tenant on two grounds namely; (i) non-payment of rent and (ii) that the premises were required by the landlord for his own use and occupation. The petition was contested by the tenant and it was pleaded that the premises in question were non-residential and the same were rented out to the tenant for commercial purposes and, therefore, the ground of personal necessity was not available to the landlord. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :-
1) Whether the petitioner requires the premises in question for his occupation? OPP
2) Whether the petition is barred Under Section 14 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973? OPD
3) Relief.
3. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the premises in dispute were residential though they had been let out for commercial purpose but since the written permission of the Rent Controller had not been obtained Under Section .11 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act) the premises would continue to be a residential building and that the landlord was en-titled to seek ejectment of the tenant on the ground of his bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller referred to the site plan and relied on the statement of the Building Inspector to come to the conclusion that the building was residential in naturet The landlord also appeared as his own witness and stated that he was working as a Senior Sales Executive with Mercury Travels and was due to retire in the year 1988. According to him he was living in Delhi in a rented premises on the first floor. He also stated that he was suffering from high blood pressure and had developed some heart problem in July, 1985 and was advised to live on the ground floor. The Rent Controller placed reliance on the statement of the landlord and found that the demised premises were bonafide required by him for his own use and occupation. Issue No. 1 was accordingly decided in favour of the landlord and against the tenant and the latter was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. On appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and held that the petitioner was liable to be evicted on account of the bonafide personal requirement of the landlord. Hence this revision petition.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties.
5. It was strenuously contended on behalf of the petitioner that the demised premises were non residential and, therefore, the ground of personal necessity was not available to the landlord for the eviction of the tenant. Reference in this regard has been made to the site plan Exhibit R-3 wherein Other buildings in the neighbourhood are shown as industrial plots over which factories are running. The premises as found by the courts below are residential in nature and this finding being a pure finding of fact and based as it is on the evidence led by the parties cannot be interfered with in the present proceedings. However, even if we assume that the premises in question were non residential, the landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity as held by the Supreme Court in Harbilas Rai Bansal v. The State of Punjab, (1995-1)112 P.L.R. 227 (S.C.) followed by this Court in Ved Parkqsh Gupta v. State of Haryana,(1997-2)116 P.L.R. 775. In Har-bilas Rat's case (supra), the learned Judges of the Supreme Court struck down the provision in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act where under the ground of personal necessity for the ejectment of a tenant was available only in regard to a residential premises. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the distinction between non-residential and residential building with regard to the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal necessity had no nexus with the. object sought to be achieved and that the classification caused serious hardship to the landlord and was, therefore, constitutionally invalid. Following this judgment, this court in Ved Parkash Gupta's case (supra) struck down Section 13(3-A) of the Act where Under the ground of personal necessity was available to the landlord only in regard to residential premises, it was held that a landlord could seek ejectment of his tenant on the ground of personal necessity even from non residential buildings. This beingso, the landlord in the instant case is entitled to seek ejectment of the petitioner on " the ground of personal necessity.
6. It was then argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the residential premises were rented out for commercial purposes the tenant could not be evicted on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord. The argument indeed is that in regard to the building in question the construction of which was completed in the year 1972 and the same having been rented out in the year 1980, it was not necessary to seek written permission of the Rent Controller Under Section11 of the Act to convert the same into a non-residential one because in view of the provisions of Section 1(3) of the Act the building was exempt for a period of 10 years from the date of its construction. There is no merit in this contention either. A plain reading of Section 1(3) of the Act makes it clear that the Act does not apply to a building. The construction of which was completed on or after the commencement of the Act for a period of 10 years from the date of its completion. Admittedly, the construction of the building was completed in the year 1972 and the Act came into force in the year 1973. Therefore, Section 1(3) of the Act is not applicable. This being so, the residential building could not be converted into a non-residential building except with the permission in writing of the Rent Controller. It is common case of the parties that such a permission was never obtained at any stage. The courts below have rightly held that the building could not be converted into non residential building and since the permission had not been obtained, it would continue to be a residential building and the landlord could seek eviction on the ground of personal necessity.
7. Having gone through the judgments of the courts below and after hearing counsel. for the parties, I am of the view that the landlord in the circumstances of the present case bonafide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. He is a heart patient suffering from hyper tension and is presently living in Delhi in a rented premises on the first floor. He has been advised by the doctors to live on the ground floor. No fault can thus be found with the findings recorded by the courts below in this regard.
8. No other point was raised.
9. In the result, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.