Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sat Pal vs Om Parkash Rohilla And Another on 13 January, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CR NO.2360 OF 2011 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
CR NO.2360 OF 2011 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 13.01.2012
Sat Pal
. . . Petitioner
Versus
Om Parkash Rohilla and another
. . . . Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
*****
Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.V.K. Jindal, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which he has been ordered to vacate the demised premises, which is a two storey shop let out @ Rs.25/- per month, on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the landlord had filed a petition for eviction in the year 1985, inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent, impairment of value and utility and personal necessity.
The said eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 6.9.1989. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 16.3.1991. The Civil Revision was dismissed on 3.8.1992 but the Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the High Court on 3.8.1995, however, the Civil Revision was again dismissed on 2.10.1999 against which the landlord had field SLP which was dismissed on 2.3.2000. The landlord also filed a review petition before the Supreme Court on 18.10.2001 but before that the landlord had retired on 31.7.2000 and the review application was dismissed on 10.3.2003. It is submitted that the present petition has been filed on the ground of personal necessity in which the evidence has been led that vide order dated 18.7.2000 (Ex.P-10) the landlord has retired from CR NO.2360 OF 2011 (O&M) -2- service w.e.f. 31.7.2000 after completing 27 years 10 months and 23 days of service in the department of Animal Husbandry in the State of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior. It is argued that during his stay at Gwalior, the landlord has raised various properties including a school which is being run in the name of Saraswati Gyan Mandir High School in Rohilla Market situated in Transport Nagar, Gwalior which is owned by the landlord and the said building consists of many shops on the ground floor as the school is being run on the first floor. It is also contended that the landlord has got one Kothi situated in Ward No.13, Kante Sahab Ka Bagh, near Killa/Fort, Gwalior. Therefore, he is well settled at Gwalior where he is running business with his family and has no bona fide intention to shift to Kurukshetra where he has no house. It is also argued that the issue of bona fide necessity has already been tested in the previous litigation wherein the landlord has miserably failed.
In reply, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that when the issue of personal necessity was raised in the earlier litigation, the landlord was in Government service whereas he had retired on 31.7.2000 much prior to the filing of the present petition on 18.10.2001 and has desired to settle at Kurukshetra. He further submits that there is a statutory safeguard enshrined in Section 13(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act'), therefore, there is no reason to presume that the need of the landlord is not bona fide.
At the time of notice of motion, learned counsel for the petitioner had also argued that he is ready to pay the prevailing market rent, if so desired by the landlord but learned counsel for the landlord has refused to accept the prevailing market rent on the ground that he wanted to start his own business in the demised premises.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the finding recorded by both the Courts below, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
JANUARY 13, 2012 JUDGE
Vivek