Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab National Bank vs Pritam Singh And Ors. on 14 March, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1997)117PLR71
Author: H.S. Bedi
Bench: H.S. Bedi
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J.
1. Pritam Singh - the landlord rented out the demised premises a residential house to the petitioner-the Punjab National Bank in July, 1978 for a initial period of 11 months to be extended from time to time. One of the stipulations of the tenancy was that the same would not be sublet to any person without the consent of the landlord. As the landlord felt that this condition of the lease had been breached, he filed an ejectment application on the ground that the tenanted premises had been sublet without the permission of the landlord; that there had been a change of user inasmuch as though the property had been rented out for running a branch of the bank, the same was being used for residential purposes; that the tenants had committed such acts which had materially impaired its value and utility and it was further pleaded that the landlord required the same for his personal use and occupation; the accommodation already with him being insufficient.
2. The tenant - respondent filed his written statement controverting the claim made in the application.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the ejectment application is maintainable ? OPA.
2. Whether the defence of respondent No. 2 is likely to be struck off as alleged in the replication ? OPA.
3. Whether the ejectment application is pre-mature ? OPR.
4. Whether the applicant has got cause of action ? OPA.
5. Whether the respondent No. 1 has sublet the disputed premises to respondent No. 2 without the written permission of the applicant ? OPA.
6. Whether the respondents have changed the user of the demised premises as alleged ? OPA.
7. Whether the respondents have committed such acts as have materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises ? OPA.
8. Whether the demised premises are residential premises as alleged. OPA.
9. In case the above issue is proved, whether the applicant needs the disputed premises for his own use and occupation and that of his family ? OPA.
10. Whether the applicant is not in occupation of any-other residential premises and has not vacated one in the Municipal area of Jalandhar. OPA.
11. Relief:
4. The Rent Controller on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the three grounds i.e. subletting, change of user and personal necessity of the landlord stood proved and having held as above, ordered the ejectment of the respondents from the demised premises. The Rent Controller also recorded a finding that the ground of personal necessity was equally open to the landlord as there could be no change of user from residential to commercial without the permission of the Rent Controller as held by this Court in Shri Hari Mittal v. Shri B.M. Sikka, (1986-1) Punjab Law Reporter 1.
5. This petition first came up for hearing before me on 25th January, 1995 when it was argued by Mr. Sarin, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that while disposing off S.L.P. No. 4216 of 1988 Dev Brat Sharma v. Dr. Jagjit Mehta), the Supreme Court had observed that the ratio of the judgment passed in Sh. B.M. Sikka's case (supra) would be applicable only to those premises which were situated in a residential or commercial area under a scheme duly framed under the Punjab Municipal Act or some other relevant statute and as there was no evidence to indicate as to whether the demised premises in the present case were a part of such a scheme, the ground of personal necessity was not available to the landlord. On this, I recorded an order that an enquiry be made by the Rent Controller as to whether the demised premises are situated in a residential or commercial area as also whether any such scheme for this area had been passed or not. The report has now been received and the Rent Controller has held after recording evidence that a scheme duly framed for this area had been sanctioned by the government on 14th February, 1996 and that the colony had been developed as a consequence of the scheme. In the light of what has been held above, it is apparent that the change of user made by the petitioner/tenant from residential to commercial without the permission of the Rent Controller was bad and could be ignored in the light of the judgment of this Court in B.M. Sikka's case. It is, therefore, apparent that the ground of personal necessity was open to the landlord in the present proceedings.
6. Faced with this difficulty, Mr. Narinder Singh Hooda, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that no ground for personal necessity was made out on facts as evidence to that effect was sadly lacking. He has then referred to Ex. R-2 dated 16th November, 1985, a letter written by the landlord to the Bank that he would be willing to hand-over the entire floor to the Bank after making additional construction if a certain specific rent was paid to him for the ground floor as well as for the first floor and has urged that in this view of the matter, the personal necessity of the landlord was suspect. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on this aspect of the matter and am of the opinion that the petitioner's argument does not have merit. It is true that Ex.R2 does refer to an effort made by the landlord to give the rest of the premises to the Bank but it is possible that it was made in the circumstances that he would give this area and shift to some other place as the portion in his possession i.e. two bed rooms were insufficient for his large family. It has come in the evidence of Pritam Singh - the landlord appearing as PW-2 that he had two sons and one daughter and whereas one son was abroad, the other Paramjit Singh and the daughter were living with him and the latter was studying for the B.A. Degree. It has also come in his evidence that Paramjit Singh aforesaid had four daughters and one son. Keeping in view the fact that Pritam Singh had a large family, two bed rooms to my mind were wholly insufficient for his needs. It is the admitted case that the demised premises consist of two bed room and three mianis and in the light of what has been mentioned above, the ground of personal necessity as claimed by the landlord stands proved. In the light of what has been held above, the other points urged by Mr. Hooda need not be gone into.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that in case, the petitioner files an undertaking before the Rent Controller and deposits all the arrears of rent up to date with advance rent for the next three months, within four months from today, the ejectment of the petitioner shall remain stayed for that period.