Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Singh vs J.L. Khanna on 24 September, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1996)114PLR513
Author: Sarojnei Saksena
Bench: Sarojnei Saksena
JUDGMENT Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. This is the landlord's revision filed under Section 18(8) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (for short the 'Act') as by the impugned order his ejectment petition filed under Section 13-A of the Act was dismissed.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that petitioner landlord averred that he is the co-owner and is specified landlord of House No.3, Sector 18, Chandigarh. Respondent is tenant in the portion of this house on a monthly rent of Rs. 180/- exclusive of electricity and water charges. The demised premises consists of two living rooms, bath-room and a latrine. Petitioner has retired from government service w.e.f. 31.5.1986. He does not own and possess another suitable accommodation in the local area of Chandigarh. He intends to reside in the suit house. He has not vacated any residential building in the urban area of Chandigarh. There is another tenant also in one room of the ground floor of the suit house, against whom he has also filed ejectment petition under Section 13-A of the Act. He requires entire ground floor for his personal use.
3. In the written reply, the tenant objected that the petitioner is neither a specified landlord nor he bonafide requires the demised premises for his residence. He objected that in 1968 the suit premises was leased put to him by the father of the petitioner for running his office of architect. Since then he is running his office therein. Hence, the suit premises is neither a residential building nor a specified building which was demised for commercial purpose. It is also averred that the petitioner is residing in Shimla with his family and the alleged need of the petitioner is not bonafide. On these grounds, prayer was declined.
4. The Rent Controller framed issues; parties adduced evidence. Rent Controller discussed evidence in cryptic manner and made observations in the order waiveredly and finally dismissed the petition only on the ground that it is not maintainable under Section 13-A of the Act as he has failed to prove that he is a specified landlord. Tenant has also objected that earlier the petitioner filed ejectment petition against him under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act, but that was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner could not prove the ground of change of user, and the tenant proved that the premises was leased out for running his business.
5. Petitioner's learned counsel relying on Jai Chand v. Miss Chandra Kanta Khosla, 1991(1) Rent Control Reporter 128, Om Parkash v. Shiv Dutt Prashar 1991(1) Rent Control Reporter, 395 and Zenobia Shanot v. P.K. Vasudeva, (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 220 contended that the Rent Controller has fallen into an error in dismissing his ejectment petition. The Rent Controller has not discussed the evidence adduced by the petitioner to prove the issue that he is a specified landlord. The Rent Controller has simply jumped at the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove that he is a specified landlord.
6. His second contention is that no doubt earlier he filed ejectment petition against the tenant under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act on the ground of change of user, which was dismissed. That order has become final as it was not assailed by him further. He submits that the landlord has not taken nay permission under Section 11 of the Act for demising the residential building for non-residentail purpose. Even the tenant admitted on oath that premises is a part of residential building and it is situated in residential area. Thus, according to him, the Rent Controller wrongly held that the premises cannot be got vacated for the residential need of the specified landlord, as it was demised for non residential purpose.
7. I have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties as well as the impugred judgment of the Rent Controller.
8. A minute reading of the impugned order shows that in paras 1 and 2, Rent Controller has reproduced the pleadings of the parties and thereafter without paraphrasing the judgment at internal page 4, she started deciding issues 1 and 2. First of all, she has reproduced arguments of the petitioner's counsel. In second para, she has dilated the submissions made by the respondent's counsel and at internal page 6, she has written that in the present petition, petitioner has to prove that he is a specified landlord and the premises in question is of residential nature. Below that she has discussed the parties evidence with regard to purpose for which the premises was leased out to the tenant in the year 1967. She has also made a reference to the earlier judgment Annexure R-1. She has not at all discussed the evidence adduced by the petitioner to prove that he is a specified landlord. Petitioner stated on oath that he has retired from government service w.e.f. 31.5.1986. He produced certificate Annexure-P2 to that effect which was taken on record as a public document, but while deciding these issues, the Rent Controller has not discussed this evidence and in the last but one para at page seven of her judgment, she has written that "In these circumstances, there is hardly any doubt left that the tenanted premises were given for a residential use and nor for commercial" and further while repelling the tenant's counsels contention that landlord is residing in Shimla, his children are studying there, and he has filed this petition to harass him, she further wrote "However, the arguments put forward by the counsel for the respondent on this point are not very convincing because it is for the petitioner to see as to whether he wants to settle down at Chandigarh or at Shimla after his retirement". This reveals utter carelessness, a total non application of mind, and jumping at findings without discussing and marshalling the evidence on record. On page seven in the last para she has written "In view of the above discussion, it is proved that the present application filed by the petitioner for the ejectment of the respondent under Section 13-A is not maintainable because the petitioner has failed to prove that he is a specified landlord hence no ejectment order can be passed in this petition because the same is not maintainable, hence no finding can be given to the effect as to whether the petitioner requires the premises in dispute for his personal use and occupation. Accordingly these issues are decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner"
In this case, as I have mentioned above, the petitioner himself has stated that he was retired from the Central Telegraph Office as a Sectional Supervisor on 31.5.198. He produced the original certificate and photo copy of the certificate at Ex A2. He also stated on oath that he does not own and possess any other residential house in the urban area of Chandigarh. He wants to settle down at Chandigarh. He is residing in Shimla as he is not owning/occupying any other residential premises in Chandigarh. He also stated that he has not vacated any residential house in the urban area of Chandigarh. He further testified that he has also filed the petition under Section 13-A of the Act against another tenant of the suit house, In cross-examination, he has stated that the demised premises was leased out to the respondent-tenant in the year 1968 by his father. At that time, he was not present. But according to him, office of Architect was started by the tenant after the death of his father in the year 1969.
10. Tenant himself has admitted in cross-examination that it is correct that the house is residential and is situated in the residential vicinity. He also admits that it is correct that the landlord has no other residential house in the urban area of Chandigarh, though he has a house in Shimla.
11. Admittedly, the landlord never obtained any permission under Section 11 of the Act from the Rent Controller to demise the suit premises for non-residential purposes. Thus, even if the tenant is using it for commercial purpose, the specified landlord is entitled to evict him if he requires the premises for residential need. During arguments, petitioner-landlord's learned counsel admitted that his ejectment petition filed against another tenant was decided in his favour the tenant's revision has been dismissed by the High Court on 22.8.1991 and he has obtained possession of the said room of the suit house. He is owner of the ground floor of the suit house. Site plan was produced before the Rent Controller. Petitioner-landlord requires whole of the ground-floor for his residence, that right cannot be denied to him.
12. On the basis of the above evidence, I find that the petitioner is a specified landlord. He bonafide requires the suit premises for his residence. He does not own/occupy any other residential building of his own in urban area of Chandigarh. He ha not vacated any other residential accommodation in urban area of Chandigarh.
13. Thus, revision is allowed holding that the petitioner-landlord is entitled to evict the tenant under Section 13-A of the Act. Tenant is hereby given one month's time to vacate the premises.
14. Copy of this order along with photo copy of the Rent Controller's order be sent by the Registry to Miss Neena Chaudhary, Rent Controller, wherever she is posted through her District Judge to show as to how in such a slip shod manner, she arrived at the findings noted above.
Copy of this order be kept in Miss Neena Chaudhary's confidential record.