Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Lal And Another vs Shivala Damodar Dass & Others on 9 December, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.2243 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 9.12.2013.
Tarsem Lal and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Shivala Damodar Dass & others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners
****
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL)
This is tenants' revision petition challenging the order dated 21.09.2006 of the Rent Controller, Phagwara whereby their eviction has been ordered from the demised premises on various grounds. Further, challenge has been made to the judgment dated 25.08.2009 of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners against the aforesaid order of eviction.
As per the averments made in the eviction petition, one Darshan Lal (predecessor-in-interest of petitioners and performa respondents No.2 to 5) was the tenant of respondent-landlord and after his death, the tenancy devolved upon the petitioners and performa respondents Nos.2 to 5, being his legal heirs. The Kumar Ashwani 2013.12.20 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.R. No.2243 of 2013 (O&M) -2- respondent-landlord had filed the instant eviction petition against the aforesaid respondents on the following grounds:-
(a) That the respondent No.1 is in arrears of rent since 01.01.1998 till the date of filing of petition.
(b) That the respondent No.1 has left India for abroad whereas, respondent No.2 is living in village Virk, Tehsil Philaur and respondent No.2 to 6 are living in village Virk or in the house of their in-laws and they have, thus, ceased to occupy the premises continuously for the period of last more than six years.
(c) That the respondents have sublet the demised rented land to respondent No.7 about five years ago and exclusive possession has been handed over to him. This fact came to light in the month of July, 1995, when the respondent No.7 tried to undertake construction at the spot and he is doing business exclusively in the demised premises as sub-lessee;
(d) That the respondents have changed the nature of the premises. Rented land was given to them for carrying on work of sale of wood but they have raised construction at the spot without the written or oral consent of either the Managing Committee or the receiver;
(e) That the rented land is required by the petitioner bona fide for its personal use and occupation. There is necessity of more construction in the shape of rooms and halls for the public purposes i.e. Stay of barats, holding religious functions and also for the stay of yatris;
(f) That the petitioner is having insufficient accommodation with it, some part of Mandir is used by the Pujari as his residence and two rooms are used by Kumar Ashwani 2013.12.20 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 C.R. No.2243 of 2013 (O&M) -3- the Managing Committee for its office and also for stay of Barats and the petitioner is not possessing any other residential building or rented land in the Municipal limits of Phagwara, except as mentioned above and the petitioner has also not vacated any residential building or rented land after the commencement of the Rent Act.
Petitioners as well as performa respondents No.2 to 5 contested the rent petition raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that the demised premises was rented out to Darshan Lal, their predecessor-in-interest and they have become tenants of the suit property. However, the averments made in the eviction petition were denied and dismissal of the ejectment petition was sought. Respondent no.6 also appeared before the Rent Controller and tendered rent. Thereafter, his counsel pleaded no instructions on his behalf and he was proceeded against ex-parte.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
"1. Whether the tender of rent is invalid? OPP
2. Whether the respondents No.1 and 2 have ceased to occupy the demised premises? OPP
3. Whether the respondents sub-let the demised land to respondent No.7? OPP
4. Whether the respondents have changed the nature of the demised premises? OPP
5. Whether the petitioner requires the demised premises for his personal use and occupation? OPP Kumar Ashwani 2013.12.20 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 C.R. No.2243 of 2013 (O&M) -4-
6. Relief."
The Rent Controller found issue Nos.1 and 4 against the respondent-landlord. However, all other issues were held against the petitioner-tenants and resultantly, the eviction petition was allowed vide order dated 21.9.2006 of the Rent Controller.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller, the petitioners in the instant revision petition filed an appeal, however, the performa respondents No.2 to 6 did not challenge the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Phagwara against them. It may further be noticed that appeal on behalf of the petitioners was preferred through one Jagdish Lal son of Pyare Lal. However, while dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller.
Still not satisfied, the petitioners have filed the instant petition before this Court.
At this stage, it may be noticed that now, the instant petition has been filed before this Court on behalf of the petitioners through their attorney Tej Kaur wife of Balbir Singh. From the records, it is found that Tej Kaur is none else but wife of respondent No.6 Balbir Singh, the sub-tenant in the property in dispute.
Challenging the orders of the Courts below, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that both the Courts below, without any evidence, have held that the petitioners were not occupying the demised premises solely on the ground that Kumar Ashwani 2013.12.20 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 C.R. No.2243 of 2013 (O&M) -5- petitioner no.1 was residing abroad, whereas no finding has been given by the authorities below with regard to other LRs of Darshan Lal, the original tenant. Moreover, Balbir Singh, the alleged sub- tenant had not appeared before the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority to contest the case. Had he been interested, being the sub- tenant, then he would have contested the eviction petition vigorously and this fact alone is sufficient to hold that there is no sub-letting of the demised premises.
Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the respondent has failed to prove its bona fide personal need for the demised premises and thus, the impugned orders of the authorities below are liable to be set aside.
The arguments raised are misconceived and are liable to be rejected outrightly. Both the authorities below, on appreciation of evidence, have recorded the impugned findings. It is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his needs. In the instant case, enough evidence has been led on behalf of the respondent-landlord to prove its bona fide need. There is nothing on record to controvert the aforesaid bona fide need of the respondent-landlord. Even before this Court, counsel for the petitioners could not point out any evidence to controvert the findings of the authorities below with regard to issue No.5.
At this stage, it may further be noticed that Jagdish Lal RW-2 while appearing as Power of Attorney for Tarsem Lal admitted in his cross-examination that petitioner No.1 was residing in Spain for Kumar Ashwani 2013.12.20 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 C.R. No.2243 of 2013 (O&M) -6- the last 8-9 years. The aforesaid factum of petitioner No.1 residing in Spain could not be disputed even before this Court. It was further admitted by the aforesaid witness that petitioners were also not carrying any business in the demised premises. In view of the aforesaid admission, which could not be disputed before this Court, no fault can be found that the findings of the authorities below to the effect that petitioners have ceased to occupy the demised premises.
Findings on all the issues are basically findings of fact and have been concurrently recorded.
In view thereof, this Court finds no merit in the petition. Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE December 09, 2013.
sandeep sethi/ak Kumar Ashwani 2013.12.20 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6