Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs Murari Lal Kalra on 19 February, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194
Page 1 of 22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-207-2025 (O&M)
Date of pronouncement: 19.02.2025
Sanjay Kumar
...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Murari Lal Kalra
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Sanjay Jain,, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. D.S. Matya, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
The tenant is in revision against the judgment dated 22.11.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala allowing the appeal of the respondent/landlord against the dismissal of his ejectment petition by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala vide order dated 04.08.2018;; and impugned order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P1) whereby application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence filed by respondent/landlord has been allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the ejectment of the petitioner from the shop bearing private no.4, part of property bearing house tax no.1431/4, situated at Shukul Kund Road, Ambala City and bounded as:: North: Shop bearing private no.3, part of H.No. 1431/4, Ambala City;; South: Passage to house no.1431/4, Shukul Kund Road Ambala 1 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 2 of 22 City; East: Main Road;
Road West: Property bearing House tax no.1431/4 Ambala City (hereinafter hereinafter referred to as 'the demised premises'). The shop in question tion was let-out let by Sh. Ram Chander Chander/ the father of respondent--
landlord to Sh. Ram Saran the father of the Petitioner/tenant in the year 1975 at a nominal rent.
rent After the death of his father the petitioner Sanjay Kumar became the tenant and started paying the rent to the respondent-- landlord. From rom the year 2001, 2001 the rate of rent of shop in question is Rs. 600/-per per month. The respondent-landlord landlord had filed various ejectment petitions against the petitioner on the ground of non non-payment payment of rent from the year 2001 200 onwards itself. Ex.R-1, and Ex.R Ex.R-13 to Ex.R-16 16 show that landlord filed ejectment petition against the tenant/petitioner on the ground of non-payment non payment of rent for the period from 2001 to 2004.Ex.R 2004.Ex.R-3 3 and Ex.R-4, and Ex.R-19 Ex.R to Ex.R-21, show that landlord had filed ejectment petition against the th petitioner on the ground of non non-payment payment of rent for the period from 01.11.2006 to 31.12.2006.Then the landlord made a statement that rent has been deposited and the petition was withdrawn.
Ex.R-5 and Ex.R-6,
Ex.R Ex.R-22 and Ex.R-23show
23show that the landlord was
constrained to file yet another ejectment petition against the petitioner on the ground of non-payment non payment of rent for the period from 01.01.2007 to 31.07.2007. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The present ejectment ectment petition was filed by the respondent respondent-landlord on 14.06.2012.
The respondent had sought the eviction of the petitioner from the demised 2 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 3 of 22 premises primarily on 2 grounds - arrears of rent; and bona fide personal necessity.
3. Upon notice, the petitioner had put in appearance resisting the rent petition on numerous grounds. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 20.02.2013:-
20.02.2013:
"1.
1. Whether the respondent is liable tto be evicted from the shop as detailed in the head note of the plaint on the grounds of ejectment taken in the petition? OPA
2. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition? OPR
3. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the pre present petition? OPR
4. Whether petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR
5. Whether petition has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from the Court? OPR
6. Relief"
4. Upon pon appraisal, the said ejectment petition was dismissed by the Ld. Rent Controller,, Ambala on 04.08.2018 primarily holding that the respondent had concealed other properties owned by him; and that the respondent had failed to comply with provision of Section 13 of the Act.
Act On 11.09.2018, the respondent landlord preferred appeal under Section 15 of the Act before the learned Appellate Authority impugning the judgment dated 04.08.2018. Th The said appeal of the respondent was allowed by the Appellate Authority on 22.11.2024 on the 3 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 4 of 22 ground of bona fide personal necessity in view of the categoric pleadings of the respondent landlord to the effect that he wishes to expand his business by constructing a showroom by way of demolishing three adjacent shops out of which one shop is the prop property in dispute. The learned Appellate Authority further found that the respondent had not concealed material information. Hence, present civil revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner-Tenant submits that the learned Appellate Authority is in patent error in setting aside the well well--
reasoned judgment of the learned Rent Controller as it is clearly made out from the record of the case that the respondent respondent-landlord had: a) concealed material facts;
facts and b) had not complied with the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act.
6. Ld. Counsel submits that first and foremost, the landlord had failed to disclose in the plaint that he had numerous other shops, even in the vicinity of the demised premises.
premises. It is submitted that on the basis of cogent evidence, it has been irrevocably established on record that the landlord had as many as 5 other shops in the close vicinity of the demised premises.It It is contended that the landlord has concealed that he owns and possesses various residential and non-residential non residential properties within the urban area of Ambala City. During cross--examination, examination, the landlord has admitted that he is having Shop No. 2908/2 now new number is 290 at Jagadhri ri Gate consisting of seven shops, which is a double storey building, but has submitted that he was not in possession of the same and it is 4 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 5 of 22 occupied by the tenant. The landlord has admitted about a property No. 1494/7595 in Nadi Mohalla Ambala City in the name of his wife, which was purchased 20 years ago.
ago The landlord is admittedly using this property as godown, although wife of the landlord is housewife, and no source of her income is disclosed. This particular property is just 500 meters away from the demised mised shop. The landlord had deposed that he had disclosed the sale of the property no. 1494 in his petition, the same was found false. The property of Jagadhri Gate bearing no. 290 is double storey building and in both the storeys storey there are seven shops and all are given by the landlord on rent. It is contended that accordingly in the first instance, the appeal of the landlord ought to have been dismissed on ground of concealment.
concealment.It It is argued that since concealment on part of the la landlord of the factum of having other properties within the urban area of Ambala City is established,, then as per settled law a person who is coming to the court by concealing true and material fact is not entitled for any discretionary relief.
7. It is further argued that from the above fact that respondent had other shops in the close vicinity of the demised premises also establishes that there was no personal necessity of the landlord landlord; as admittedly,, the landlord was owner in possession of other properties as well. It is reiterated that the respondent respondent-landlord landlord has failed to fulfil essential test of bona fide as he has failed to explain and also failed to mention regarding other properties in his petition, rent petition, replication, and his affidavit affida in evidence (Ex.PW1/A). As such, clearly, the respondent is 5 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 6 of 22 guilty of concealment of material facts and that the present petition deserves to be allowed on this short ground itself. It is submitted that there is no pleading on the part of the landlord that the other properties are not suitable or convenient for the alleged extension of the business.
8. Learned counsel further argues that the landlord has failed to satisfy the ingredients of Section 13 of the Rent Act for seeking ejectment of the tenant from the demised shop shop. The Ld. Appellate Authority committed illegality in allowing the application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the landlord, the said order is non-speaking.
speaking. It is contended that Section 13(3)(a) of the Rent Act also applies to non-residential non residential buildings. It has been held that landlord cannot seek ejectment of tenant from non-residential non residential buildings. Amendment made in section 13(3) (a) by Amending Act 29 of 1956 which deprived the landlords dlords to their right to seek ejectment from non non-residential residential premises struck down as violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and original provisions of section 13(3) (a) restored. It is also submitted that the landlord has not complied with the provisions provisions of section 13(3) (a) of the Rent Act as he has concealed the other properties. Learned counsel for the petitioner extensively refers to the findings of the learned Rent Controller in the order dated 04.08.2018, especially to the findings as record recorded ed in Paras 22 and 26 of the said order.
9. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner had sent the rent from 01.08.2021 to 31.12.2024 @ Rs. 600/ 600/- total amounting to 6 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 7 of 22 Rs.24,600/- through demand draft no. 018804 dated 09.12.2024 sent through post, but the same has not been accepted by the landlord.
10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relies judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Harbilas Rai Bansal & upon judgments Another Vs. State of Punjab" Law Finder Doc ID # 17871; "Kishan Chand Vs. Jagdish Pershad & Others" Law Finder Doc ID # 187212 187212; and of this Court in "Banke Ram Vs. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi" Law Finder Doc ID # 32977;; "Babli & Others Vs. Kumari Ruchi Bansal & Another" Law Finder Doc ID # 805186;
805186; "Jatinder Kaur Vs. S.K. Dhaliwal" Law Find Finder er Doc ID # 701909; "Ravinder Sood & Another Vs. Mohan Lal" Law Finder Doc ID # 452005; and "Basant Kumar (deceased, through LRs) Vs. Romesh Kumar Deora" CR No.3038 of 2008 (O&M) decided on 03.07.2015 03.07.2015.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord landlord appearing on Caveat vehemently opposes prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner had entered the demised premises as a tenant tenant as far back as in 1975 at the rate of paying rent of Rs.500/- per month.
month In 2001, the said rate of rent was revise revised to ₹600/- per month. Even then th the petitioner had not been paying regularly and the respondent had to file numerous petitions. Despite that the petitioner did not pay rent regularly. Thus, the landlord was constrained to file the p present resent petition on 14.06.2012 as not only was the building where the demised premises are situate, old and dilapidated but also because the landlord 7 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 8 of 22 wanted to expand his business. As such, personal necessity of the landlord is very much made out.
12. It is further submitted that it has been wrongly stated by the petitioner that there was any concealment on part of the landlord, and therefore, there is no error in the impugned order. It is contended that Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act very clearly stipu stipulates that a declaration has to be made in respect of "residential buildings". The present premises are not 'residential' in nature and therefore, in the first instance, no such declaration was required to be made by the landlord. It is submitted that in the he present case, the demised premises was admittedly a shop; and therefore, no such declaration was required to be made in respect of the said premises. Learned counsel argues that the Legislature in its wisdom has very consciously and categorically includ included only 'residential buildings' within the purview of Section 13(3)(a)(i) as,, it is but trite to suggest that the landlord cannot live in a number of houses but he may definitely rent/run his business from innumerable number of shops from across the country.
y. It is contended that therefore, the landlord is not required to disclose his assets or in the present case, the other shops owned by him to the tenant to seek ejectment. It is contended that the same would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the pro provision inasmuch as the two categories of 'residential' and 'shop' are distinctly different from each other. It is reiterated that the tenant has no locus to know about other properties owned by the landlord. Therefore, declaration is also not 8 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 9 of 22 required. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relies upon the judgment in "Ganesh Kumar Vs. Inderjit" law finder Doc ID # 723357 723357, wherein it has been held in Para 18 as follows:
follows:-
"18. Then as above discussed, in Banwari Lal's case cited (supra), it has been held that if no prejudice has been caused to the tenant due to non-pleading pleading of the ingredients as envisaged under the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act, then the petition cannot be rejecte rejected. In the case in hand also, as abovesaid no prejudice ha has been caused to the petitioner herein (tenant) due to the non non-pleading of ingredient as provided under subclause (c) of abovesaid Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. Then Pritam Singh Bakshi's case cited (supra) is also on different footing and as such it has also no bearing on the facts of the case in hand. The facts of this case law are already discussed in Para No. 10 of this judgment and hence there is no need to discuss the same herein again in order to avoid repetition. Then in the case in hand, the tenant nt did not take any plea in his written statement that the respondent herein (landlord) had vacated any shop without any sufficient cause after commencement of the Rent Act within the Municipal limit of Mukerian.
Mukerian."
13. It is further contended that in any event the declaration as sought under the above set provision was very much made by the respondent in Para 3 of the Rent Petition filed by him before the Rent Controller. As such, the said argument of the petitioner rega regarding non-compliance compliance of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act is misplaced. Learned 9 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 10 of 22 counsel for the respondent-landlord respondent landlord submits that therefore, there was no concealment on part of the landlord.
14. It is also pointed out that the other shop which were rented out ut to another tenant who was similarly situate as the present petitioner, the landlord has taken possession. Learned counsel for the respondent refers to the report of the bailiff dated 12.07.2022 in this regard.. It is submitted that even the misconceived contempt petition filed by one of the other tenants has been dismissed.
15. It is reiterated that the present petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner herein has strongly relied upon Section 13 3(a)(i)
a)(i) which was duly complied by the respondent herein in his petition. As a matter of fact, such argument raised by Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Ld. Rent Controller was misconceived since no provision under law mandates the petitioner landlord to disclose his entire properties owned by him. Otherwise also such provision relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Rent Controller was not applicable to the present case since the aforesaid specific provision relied upon relates to/deals to/deals with residential properties only only.
16. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relies upon judgments of this Court in "Virinder Nayar Vs. Jatinder Singh (Deceased)" Law Finder Doc ID # 2325426; "M/s Mangal Deep & Another Vs. Rajinder Parsad & Others" Law Finder Doc ID # 841899; "Ganesh Kumar Vs. Inderjit" Law Finder Doc ID # 723357; "Sanjay Bansal Vs. M/s 10 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 11 of 22 Kaithal Provision Store & Another" Law Finder Doc ID # 1006044;
"Narinder Kumar Vs. Smt. Raghbir Kaur" Law Fin Finder Doc ID # 278524;
"Amrit Bansal Vs. M.L. Goyal & Another" Law Finder Doc ID # 532603;
"Joginder Nath Chawla (Since Deceased) Vs. Mohan Kalra" Law Finder Doc ID # 2260301; "Vinod Kumar Vs. Aruna Jain & Another" Law Finder Doc ID # 814048; "M/s. Satpal Vijay Vijay Kumar Vs. Sushil Kumar" Law Finder Doc ID # 243115; "Kirpal Singh @ Kirpal Chand Vs. Satish Kumar" Law Finder Doc ID # 1100943; "Improvement Trust Patiala Vs. Jaswinder Kaur" Law Finder Doc ID # 242626.
17. Ld. counsel for the petitioner vehemently ccontroverts the submissions made by the respondent and submits that it is incorrect to state that provision of Section 13 shall apply only to residential buildings and not to shops. In this regard, learned counsel relies upon judgment rendered by this Court in Babli & Others (supra), it has been held that:-
"B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 13(3)(a)(i) - Eviction of tenant for bona fide personal necessity of landlord for starting own business - It is necessary for the landlord landlord to disclose and plead essential ingredients required by Section 13(3)(a) of the Act - Landlord sought eviction of tenant from a shop without disclosing the shops in his possession which were suitable and sufficient for his purpose - Non-disclosure disclosure of sh shops in possession of the landlord was fatal and eviction petition was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone - Revision petition allowed - Eviction order set aside."
11 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 12 of 22
18. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioner.
19. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file in great detail.
20. The petitioner has primarily made a twofold contention before this Court: a) that the respondent has failed to disclose his ownership of other similar properties properti situated in the vicinity of the demised premises, premises and has therefore concealed material facts; and has therefore also failed to establish his bona fide requirement of the demised premises; and b) that the landlord has failed to comply with the provision of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act.
21. I have given my very thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for both the parties. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
22. Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act stipulates as follows: -
"(3) (3) (a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession -
i) in the case of a residential 1[* * * ] building if -
(a) he requires it for his own occupation;
(b) he is not occupying another residential 2[*****] *****] building, 3 [*****] *****] in the urban area concerned; and
(c) he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in the said urban area;4
[(d) it was let to the tenant for use as a residence by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord, and the 12 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 13 of 22 tenant has ceased, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, to be in such service or employment:
Provided that where the tenant is workman who has been discharged or dismissed by the landlord from his service or employment in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he shall not be liable to be evicted until the competent authority under that Act confirms the order of discharge or dismissal made against him by the landlord.] landlord.]"
23. For the present nt it is not found necessary to aadvert to the argument of learned counsel for the respondent that as per the above provision, a declaration is mandated only in case of 'residential buildings' buildings', and is not required for the present demised premises, the same being a shop which would therefore therefore not fall in the category of residential building.
24. For the present, I shall move on the assumption that such a declaration is also necessary in respect of non non-residential buildings, such as the present demised shop. What is therefore to be determine determined now is that did the respondent comply with with/ fulfill the requirement of Section 13(3)(a)(i). A bare reading of the said provision indicates that the declaration sought from the landlord is that: a) he is not occupying another residential building in the urban area concerned; and b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in the urban area concerned.
25. Upon a perusal of the case fi file, it is my clear view that the declaration as required under the above provision was veritably made
13 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 14 of 22 by the respondent in Para 3(b) of the plaint (Annexure P-1). Para 3 of the rent petition filed by the respondent reads as follows: -
"3. That the respondent is liable to be ejected from the shop in question on the following grounds;
a) That the respondent has neither paid nor tendered the rent of the shop in question @ Rs. 600/ 600/- per month w.e. f.
1.9.2009 to 30.6.2012 for 34 months which come comes to Rs.
20,400/- which the respondent has not paid nor tendered inspite of repeated requests and reminders of the petitioner.
b) That the shop in question is required by the petitioner for his personal bonafide necessity. The petitioner is occupying only a small shop bearing private no.2 the part of property 1431/4 Shukulkund Road Ambala City. The private shop no. 3 the part of said property is in possession of Virender Khurana. The Petitioner is also filing a separate ejectment petition against Virender Khu Khurana also because the Petitioner wants to construct a big showroom in all the above said 3 shops, i.e. private number 2,3 and 4 the part of above said property, after demolishing the same. The Petitioner is facing difficulties in carrying on his business in n his above said small shop. The petitioner is unable to carry on his business in the said small shop. It is a well established fact that now a days big showrooms attract more customers rather than the small shops. It is also worthwhile to mention here tha that the above said property/ all 3 shops are situated in the heart of the City and there is a big wholesale market situated opposite the shop in question. And as such the shop in question is required by the petitioner for his own use and occupation, 14 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 15 of 22 for his bonafide personal necessity. The petitioner neither own or possesses any other such property where the petitioner may carry on his business in a big showroom nor the petitioner has vacated any such accommodation without any reasonable cause after the comme commencement of East Punjab Act No. III of 1949."
(emphasis supplied)
26. As demonstrated above, the only declaration required by the landlord is that he is not occupying other residential building in the urban area concerned; and he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act in tthe said urban area. A bare reading of the above averments in Para 3 (b) clearly shows that the respondent has made the necessary declaration. The respondent has categorically stated that the landlord was not in possession of any vacant shop at the relevant time. The respondent has further averred that he has not vacated any such accommodation without any reasonable cause after the commencement of the Act. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the case law relied upon by the petitioner would apply to 'shops', even then only a declaration is required required; which has been duly made by the landlord in Para 3(b) of the Rent Petition filed by him before the learned Rent Controller. As such, argument of the petitioner that the respondent had failed to comply with the requirement of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act, is misconceived.
15 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 16 of 22
27. It has next been contended on part of the petitioner that the respondent has concealed material information regarding other shops and premises owned by him in the urban area concerned. In this regard, the petitioner has primarily referred to Shop No. 2908/2 now new number is 290 at Jagadhri Gate consisting of seven shops, which is a double storey building.
building However, the landlord has categorically stated that he is only co-sharer co sharer in the said shops. This fact has not been controverted by the petitioner either before before the Courts below, or before this Court.
28. The petitioner has also referred to one other property No. 1494/7595 in Nadi Mohalla Ambala City City. However, admittedly, the said property is in the name of wife of the respondent respondent-landlord. Any alleged usage of the said premises by the respondent as a godown is irrelevant.
29. From the above facts, it is clear that there is no concealment on part of the landlord; and that necessary and relevant information in respect of the demised premises has been duly provided in the present proceedings. However, a perusal of the order dated 4.8.2018 of the learned Rent Controller, Controller especially of the findings and reasoning contained in paras 22 to 25 of the said order order, shows that the above facts have not been considered at all.The The Rent Controller has also not dealt with the admission made by the petitioner in his cross-examination that the respondent has no other vacant shop. The relevant extract of the 16 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 17 of 22 cross-examination examination of the petitioner admitting that the respondent is not in occupation of any other vacant shop on th the relevant date, is as follows:-
"xxxx xxxx I am not aware about the particulars of the 66-7 shops I state about at Jagadhari Gate in possession of Murari Lal. One shop is with Sahani Sweets, 2nd Shop is a Electric Electricity Shop whose name I am not aware of. 2 shops are with Naresh Mobile Shop Keeper on rent. In 1 shop, boutique work is done. On ground floor only these 5 shops are there and on the 1st Floor there is a Computer Center which is in the possession of some person son namely Sharma which is in the name of Sharma Computer. Apart from this Electrician is also possessing a Godown on the First Floor.
I did not informed my advocate about the above mentioned tenants. Volunteered he knows everything. I do not know about the he particulars of other commercial property owned by Murari Lal situated at Civil Hospital Road. That property was purchased by Murari Lal in the year 1996. That property is in the name of Murari Lal. The particulars of the property is registered with the Municipal Corporation in the name of Murari Lal. I have not seen the sale deed of the said property. I have seen M.C. ID. This property situated at Civil Hospital Road is a same property regarding which I have named 66-7 tenants. Out of those shops, 1 shop is with Sahani Sweet on rent for last 5-66 years. I cannot produced evidence regarding tenancy qua property with Sahani Sweets for last 55-6 years. It is incorrect to suggest that the said property is rented out to Sahani Sweets for last around 18 years. Bef Before the said shop was rented to Sahani Sweets, the said shop was under
tenancy of one electrician. After getting the electrician
17 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 18 of 22 evicted, the said shop was given to Sahani Sweets. Probably the name of the electrician is Haseeja. I do not have evidence regarding rding this but I can tender. Adjoining to Sahani Sweet there is a shop which has been rented out to an electrician for last 18 years. And Naresh Mobile Shop Keeper is also on rent for last around 18 years since he is under tenancy. The lady running the boutique tique shop is also on rent for last 18 years since she got the said shop on rent from Murari Lal i.e. landlord. On ground floor, there is no other shop owned by Murari Lal. Volunteered there are stairs and on the 1st Floor, there is a Computer Center and Godown regarding which I have already stated above that in whose possession these shops are."
30. As regards, whether bona fide requirement of the respondent is proved on record, I find that the material on record unequivocally indicates in the affirmative. It is the clear and consistent case of the respondent that he wants to expand his shop shop/property bearing house tax no.1431/4, of which private no.22 is in the occupation of the respondent; private no.3 was in the occupation of one V Varinder Khurana;
and private no.4/present no. present demised premises is in the occupation of the petitioner. Admittedly, in respect of private no.3 previously in the possession of said Varinder Khurana, Khurana ejectment order was passed, which was upheld by the learned Appellate Authority. Admittedly, thereafter said private No.3 was also got vacated. As such, now respondent is unable to expand the showroom only because petitioner continues to be in occupation of the present demised premises.
18 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 19 of 22
31. In this regard, the relevant findings of the learned Appellate Authority are contained in para 15 of the order dated order dated 22.11.2024, which reads as under:-
"15. Second & last ground of the appellant is that whether personal need of the appellant appellant-petitioner qua the shop is bonafide fide or not? Perusal of the file shows that the appellant appellant-
petitioner is pleading that he requires the shop for his personal bonafide need as he wants to construct a big showroom in his all three shops bearing private No.2 to 4 being part of house No.1431/4 No.1431/4. Eviction orders regarding other shops have already been passed by learned Rent Controller. On the other hand, stand of the respondent respondent-
tenant is that appellant-petitioner petitioner has other residential and non-residential residential properties and therefore, appellant appellant-petitioner does not require the shop for his personal bonafide need as alleged. Counsel for the respondent respondent-tenant has taken the stand that the appellant-petitioner petitioner has concealed facts from the court that he is owner of other shops in the same city. However, stand d of the appellant appellant-petitioner is that he is only a co-sharer sharer in other properties and is not in possession/occupation thereof. Further, as already stated above, stand of the appellant--petitioner is that he requires the shop for construction of a big showroom in his all three shops No.2 to 4 which is part of house No.1431/4 and others shops/properties have already been got vacated through Court. This court has perused sed the testimony of witnesses i.e. of the petitioner as well as respondent respondent-tenant where from it can easily be extracted that it is not disputed fact that the petitioner is owner of other shops in the same city but it is a 19 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 20 of 22 fact that all these shops are alr already rented out to other persons. This fact has also been admitted by witnesses of the respondent-tenant.
nt. It means that there is no concealment on the part of the appellant-petitioner.
petitioner. Learned Trial Court has discussed the entire cross-examination examination of the a appellant-
petitioner to justify declining plea regarding bonafide need of the appellant-petitioner petitioner which is not tenable as these facts are only applicable if there was any concealment on the part of the appellant-petitioner regarding other shops or vacated shops etc. if the same are in possession of the appellant appellant-
petitioner as it is admitted fact that other shops are already rented out to other persons. It is also settled law that respondent-tenant tenant can not dictate his terms & conditions to landlord how to proceed roceed for former's business. Appellant Appellant-
petitioner, who being co-owner/landlord owner/landlord is the best person to know his requirement and none other. On the other hand, the respondent-tenant tenant has failed to lead any cogent & clinching evidence on file to prove that nee need of the appellant-petitioner is not bonafide. It is an established position of law that a landlord is the best judge of his requirement and a tenant can not dictate terms to the landlord regarding use of his own property. It is also an established positio position of law that in case of bonafide requirement, Courts can not thrust their own wisdom on the choice of the landlord as held in the case titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. Sandeep Aggarwal & Ors. 2015 (1) HR 101 (P&H).. In another case titled as M/s Sat Pal Vijay Kumar Vs. Sushi Kumar 2011(1) RCR (Rent) 160 160, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that when eviction is sought on the ground of bonafide need, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the assumption that the requirement is not bonafide. If the landlord andlord states that he needs the demised 20 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 21 of 22 shop for the establishment of his new business or to extend the business, his need should always be presumed as correct and genuine. In the case titled as Manmohan Singh Vs. Agyakar Singh & Anr. 2015(1) HLR 396 (P&H (P&H), the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the landlord's version that he requires the premises for his personal necessity should be accepted as genuine unless the tenant proves that the need is not bonafide. Onus to prove that the landlord's need is not genuine lies on the tenant as held in the case titled as Surinder Chopra Vs. Harbans Kaur, 2008(1) HRR 691 (P&H).. Thus, it is established on record that need of the appellant-petitioner petitioner is bonafide and he is entitled to get vacant possession off the shop by way of eviction of the respondent-tenant tenant therefrom on this ground. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set set-aside."
(Emphasis added)
32. Thus, the bona fide personal necessity of the respondent also stands proven on record.
33. The present petition deserves to be dismissed even on grounds of equity as the petitioner was inducted into the demised premises as far back as in 1975 for paltry rent of Rs.600/ Rs.600/- per month.
Nothing whatsoever has been brought to the notice of this Court that the said rent was revised or enhanced at any point of time thereafter. It has also been admitted on record that the respondent has had to file numerous petitions to recover even even the paltry rent of ₹600/- per month.
34. In view of the above, present petition is dismissed.
21 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024194 Page 22 of 22
35. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
19.02.2025 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
22 of 22
::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2025 21:26:08 :::