Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab & Another vs Karnail Kaur & Another on 16 December, 2011
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.7789 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 16.12.2011
State of Punjab & another
-----Petitioners
Vs.
Karnail Kaur & another
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to
see judgment?
2. To be referred to reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present:- Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Addl.A.G., Punjab
for the petitioners.
---
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
1. The State of Punjab has filed the instant revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 26.5.2010 of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby its eviction has been ordered from the demised premises and order dated 15.9.2011 of the Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal filed against the aforesaid order of eviction.
2. As per the facts emerging out from the impugned order, the respondents are the owner-landlords of the demised premises i.e. SCO No.34, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh, which were taken on rent by the State of Punjab vide lease deed dated 1.7.1985 at a monthly rent of `5400/-. According to the respondent-landlords, Shri Bhajan Singh, husband of respondent C.R. No.7789 of 2011 2 No.1 and father of respondent No.2 had expired on 1.8.2001 and after his death, they have shifted from Kolkata to Chandigarh along with their family members. Respondent No.2 is a Chartered Accountant by profession and registered with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. He wants to establish his own office of Chartered Accountancy and thus, he required the demised premises for the purpose of juniors, office staff, second room, library etc. It was further the case of the respondents that the petitioners have removed the common wall between SCO Nos.33 and 34, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh and have also carved out new windows on first, second and third floors without any permission of the respondent-landlords. The alterations so made amounted to violation of sanctioned plan of the building and thus, the act of the respondents amounts to material impairment of value and utility of the building, which can also be resumed by the Estate Office, Chandigarh due to removal of common wall, carving of new windows/doors and violation of sanctioned plan and building bye laws framed under the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation), Act, 1952. Thus, the eviction of the petitioners was sought on the ground of non- payment of rent and personal bona fide necessity of the respondent-landlords and also on the ground that the petitioners have caused material impairment to the value and utility of the premises in dispute.
C.R. No.7789 of 2011 3
3. The petitioners in their reply have pleaded that the need of the respondent No.2 was not genuine, as there were other commercial properties in his possession which are situated at Chandigarh and which are readily available, from where he can start his profession of Chartered Accountancy. The petitioners further denied that they have committed any violation, as alleged. It was their further case, that they have not made any material addition or alteration in the demised premises. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
"1. Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the respondents are liable to be evicted from the demised premises i.e. Ist, IInd floor of SCO No.34, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh? OPP
3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR
4. Whether respondents are in arrears of rent?
OPR
5. Whether the petitioners required the premises for their personal use and occupation? OPR
6. Whether the respondents have materially impaired the value and utility of the premises? OPR
7. Whether the respondents have also violated the bye-laws of building rules framed under the Capital of Punjab Act? OPR
8. Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition? OPR
9. Relief."C.R. No.7789 of 2011 4
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the Rent Controller decided the issues No.1, 2, 5 and 6 in favour of the respondent-landlords whereas the issues No.3, 4 and 7 were not pressed and resultantly, the eviction of the petitioners was ordered from the demised premises. Appeal filed by the State of Punjab against the order of eviction was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 15.9.2011. While dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Authority observed as under:-
"19. It has come on record that the petitioners' family was earlier residing at Kolkata. There is statement made by petitioner No.2 while appearing as his own witness that his father expired on 1.8.2001 and the petitioners have shifted permanently to Chandigarh alongwith their family members in the year 2007 after winding up the professional commitments at Kolkata. The petitioner No.2 is a Chartered Accountant. The certificate of practice issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in the name of petitioner No.2 is Exhibit P1. The daughter of petitioner No.2 Ms. Sehej Kaur is studying in Sacred Heart School, Sector 26, Chandigarh. She was admitted in the school on 17.4.2007, as is clear from the cash receipt, which is part of fee book Exhibit P4. There is a gas connection in the name of petitioner No.2 and copy of the customer subscription voucher is Exhibit P6, which shows that the petitioner No.2 is resident of House No.3045, Sector 28D, Chandigarh. There is voter identity card in the name of petitioner No.2 at the above said address, copy of which is Exhibit P7. It is thus clear C.R. No.7789 of 2011 5 from the record referred to above that the petitioners are now residing in Chandigarh.
20. The petitioner No.2 being a Chartered Accountant wants to open his office in the premises in question. It is not disputed that all the three floors were let out to the respondents by way of single tenancy. In view of the law as already discussed above, the tenancy cannot be split, that it cannot be said that the petitioner No.2 should establish his office in one floor and leave other two floors with the respondents. There is evidence that petitioner No.2 needs all the three floors for running the office as the staff members will be there. The record has to be kept safely. The petitioner No.2 being a Chartered Accountant will also be required to maintain his library. In these circumstances, it is held that the petitioners have succeeded in proving that they require the demised premises for their bonafide personal necessity. The findings of learned Rent Controller on issue No.5 are accordingly affirmed.
21. As regards material impairment of value and utility of the demised premises, there is statement made by petitioner No.2 that respondents have removed the common wall in first, second and third floors and also carved out new windows and doors on the third floor, without the written consent of the petitioners. This statement made by petitioner No.2 has remained un- rebutted. From the side of respondents, Shri Manjit Singh, Registrar (Education) O/o Director of Public Instructions (SE), Punjab, Chandigarh, appeared as RW.1. He could not say in cross-examination if the common walls in between SCO No.33 and 34 on first floor, second floor and third floors have been removed. He also could not say whether some windows have been C.R. No.7789 of 2011 6 carved out after taking the demised premises on rent. All this evidence proves the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents have materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. The demised premises are comprised in SCO No.34. SCO No.33 does not belong to the petitioners. Admittedly, the respondents are also in occupation of SCO No.33 and by removing intervening wall, the respondents have not only violated the building bye-laws framed under the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act but also acted in violation of the sanctioned plan and thus materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. It is well settled that the impairment is to be seen from the point of view of the landlords. Removal of the wall which differentiated the demised premises from the adjoining property definitely amounts to material impairment."
5. Challenging the impugned orders, learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the authorities below are contrary to the records as it has been proved on record that the respondent-landlords are not in need of the demised premises. Learned State counsel has also argued that the fact of removal of the aforesaid intervening wall of SCO Nos.33 and 34, Sector 17-E, was well within the knowledge of the respondent-landlords and was never objected to.
6. I have heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the impugned judgments.
C.R. No.7789 of 2011 7
7. There is nothing on record to prove the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the fact of removal of intervening wall in first, second and third floors of SCO Nos.33 and 34, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh was in the knowledge of the respondent-landlords, the same was acquiescenced. There is not even an iota of evidence to support the aforesaid contention. Not only this, it could also not be disputed that the ownership of both the SCOs i.e. SCO No.33 and SCO No.34, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh is of different persons. Once the property of the respondent-landlord has been merged into the property of another person, it cannot be said that it will not impair the value and utility of same. So far as the finding of the authorities below on the question of personal necessity of the respondent is concerned, it is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and the tenant cannot dictate his terms with regard to suitability of the accommodation. The State Counsel has failed to make out a case for interference in the aforesaid findings of the authorities below.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this petition.
9. Dismissed.
December 16, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE