Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roop Chand vs Karneesh Kumar on 11 May, 2010
Civil Revision No. 4480 of 2006 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 4480 of 2006
Date of decision: 11.5.2010
Roop Chand
...Petitioner
Versus
Karneesh Kumar ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the respondent.
S.D.ANAND, J.
The respondent-landlord had raised a plea for ejectment of the petitioner from the tenanted premises on an averment that the same are required for personal bonafide necessity inasmuch as his grand son wants to run a business therein. In a view of concurrence, both the forums (learned Rent Controller as also learned Appellate Authority) upheld the averment.
It was argued on behalf of the petitioner, with all vehemence, that a grand son cannot be said to be a member of the family of the grand father-landlord, particularly when it is not the averment that the grand son is financially dependent upon the landlord. In support of the view that only a spouse and children form part of the family, reliance has been placed upon A.K.Jain Vs. Prem Kapoor AIR 2008 Supreme Court 3194 and Kailash Chand and another Vs. Dharam Dass 2005 (1) R.C.R. 551.
Civil Revision No. 4480 of 2006 -2-
**** The outer limit within which a Revisional Court can undertake the adjudicatory exercise was provided by the Apex Court in judicial pronouncements reported as Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited 1999 (1) Punjab Law Reporter 805 and Shamshad Ahmad and others Vs. Tilak Rak Bajaj (deceased) through LRs. and others (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1. On perusal thereof, it can safely be culled out that "a reappraisal of evidence can be made, but that should be for the limited purpose to ascertain whether the conclusion arrived at by the fact finding court is wholly unreasonable." The constriction of revisional powers noticed, the adjudicatory exercise is undertaken as under:-
I have not been able to persuade myself to find any force in the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner. There is no warrant for the proposition that a grand son has necessarily to be averred and proved to be financial dependent upon the paternal grand father before the latter can raise a claim for ejectment of tenant from the tenanted premises for use by the latter. Infact, the question of financial dependence of a grand son upon the paternal grand father would appear to be completely foreign to the issue. What, to my mind, would be relevant for purpose of consideration in such like eventuality would be whether the projected need is bonafide or a mere wish of the landlord aimed at obtaining vacation of the tenanted premises. Being from the same line of generation otherwise, a grand son can validly raised a claim of the indicated category and there is nothing whatsoever wrong in a grand father raising a plea that he requires the tenanted premises for occupation Civil Revision No. 4480 of 2006 -3- **** by his grand son. The plea raised by the respondent - landlord is supported by the statement of general attorney PW-1-Peeru Tam and the needy son Manoj Kumar himself, both of whom made a categorical deposition about that the tenanted premises are required for running of business by the latter.
In view of the in-built riders in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the revisional Court indicated by the Apex Court in Sarla Ahuja's and Shamshad Ahmad's cases (supra) and also in view of the above noticed facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be negatived.
In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner- tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned.
May 11, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge