Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subhash Chander Chawla vs Gurdial Singh on 20 April, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)138PLR180
JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This is tenant's petition filed under Section 15(5) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the Act) against the judgment and decree dated 4.3.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur holding that the landlord-respondent is entitled to order of ejectment on the ground of bona-fide personal necessity. It has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that the afore-mentioned ground is available to the landlord-respondent in view of the fact that he intends to shift his business of repairing the Air-conditioners and Refrigerator from Dubai to Hoshiarpur. The Rent Controller had ordered ejectment on the ground of short tender of rent also but the finding on the afore-mentioned issue has been reversed by the learned Appellate Authority by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 370. It has also been held that the tenant is not to judge the need of the landlord and reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by this court as well as by the Supreme Court in cases reported as Tripta Soni and Anr. v. S.P. Jain, 1987(2) R.C.R. 1871 (P&H), Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. Traders and Agencies, 1996(2) R.C.R. 233 (S.C.) and' Suman Gupta v. Smt. Shamila Gupta,. 2000(2) R.C.R. 202 (P&H). Reference to these judgments have been made in para 22 of the impugned judgment by the Appellate Authority. The views of the Appellate Authority with regard to bonafide necessity of the landlord respondent read as under:-
"There is no dispute between the parties that the landlord had been residing abroad and the testimony of the landlord and his witness Ramesh Chander regarding the staying of the landlord in Dubai and running business of repair of Air Condition and refrigerators etc. for a long duration remained unrebutted. It may be that the landlord while leaving Dubai had not completely shut down his business there and the partner of the landlord was still continuing the said business in his absence through workers. The landlord Gurdial Singh had also made the statement on oath regarding his ailing health because of which he was unable to stay in Dubai to look after his business and wanted to start his business of repair of Air conditions and Refigators in the demised shop. Though, no doctor has been examined regarding ill health of the landlord but voluminous document regarding his medical treatment which are marked have been placed on record and the oral testimony of the landlord duly supported by the statement of AW 1 Ramesh Kumar can be safely relied upon for coming to the conclusion that the landlord Gurdial Singh was having health problem because of which his staying alone in Dubai was justified as he wanted to stay with is wife in India. The landlord Gurdial Singh was having, experience of working in Refrigerator and Air Conditioners and, therefore, there possibility could be no doubt regarding the intention of the landlord to run the same business in the demised shops which because of its location are suitable. Apart from this, in view of the ratio of the case of Tripta Soni and Anr. v. S.P. Jain (supra). Meenal Eknath Kashrsagar v. M/s Traders and Agencies (supra) and Suman Gupta v. Smt. Shamila Gupta (supra) cited on behalf of the landlord, the landlord is the best judge of his needs".
2. Shri Sudeep Mahajan learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that both the Courts below have failed to consider the admission made by the landlord-respondent on 12.5.2002 that out of the set of six shops one of the shops had already been got vacated and that fact would show that the landlord-respondent has no bona fide necessity to occupy the shop. Learned counsel has also argued that the landlord-respondent has no intention to close his business in Dubai as his business till date is continuing there. In support of his submission, the leaned counsel-has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bal Kishan v. Sat Parkash Sood, (1994-1)106 P.L.R. 71. According to the learned counsel once he has not closed the business either on the date of filing of ejectment petition or during the pendency of the petition it cannot be presumed that he requires the premises bona-fide for his personal use. Learned counsel has maintained that evidence has come on record that the landlord-respondent is not keeping good health and for that purpose he is taking treatment at USA which is extremely expensive. In order to meet the expenses for his treatment, the landlord-respond-net has to continue his business in Dubai because in the absence of good return he would not be able to get medical aid from USA. Therefore, it is unlikely that the landlord-respondent would occupy the premises at Hoshiarpur by shifting his business at Dubai.
3. Dr. M.S. Rahi, learned counsel for the landlord respondent has drawn my attention to the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Authority as well as the Rent Controller and argued that no submission was made before the Courts below with regard to the vacation of one of the six shops as provided by Section 13(3) of the Act. Learned counsel has further pointed out that it is not the concern of the tenant-petitioner to judge the need and suitability of the landlord-respondent. Learned counsel has specifically relied upon the arguments raised in para 21 and the findings recorded in para 22 of the judgment of the Appellate Authority.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that this petition is liable to be dismissed because both the Courts below have concurrently found that the landlord-respondent requires two shops for his bonafide necessity to establish his business which he was conducting at Dubai. Whether he actually shifts or he continues at Dubai cannot be seen at this stage. Under the Act there are adequate remedies available to the tenant in case the landlord who had got ejectment of the tenant ordered on the ground of personal necessity by filing appropriate application before the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the tenant is no one to guide the landlord as to what is his personal necessity. It has also been held whether the landlord is financially capable to start the business or not is no concern of the tenant. Therefore, no occasion is provided to interfere in the orders of ejectment passed by the Courts below. I also do not find any ground to accept the submission with regard to vacation of one shop because there is no discussion in the orders passed by the Courts below and moreover one shop may not be sufficient for the landlord-respondent to start his business. The ground that he has not shifted his business by relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Bal Kishan (supra) would also not be acceptable because it is well known that litigation in this country takes some time to mature. The landlord having well established business cannot first close the business and then start litigation. He cannot be expected to shift during the midst of the litigation. The expenses which are to be incurred by the landlord on his illness is of no concern of the tenant and the aforementioned argument would not require any detailed consideration. The petition is devoid of any merit and is thus liable to be dismissed.
For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.