Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kumar vs Kaushalya Devi on 26 August, 2011
Author: K.C. Puri
Bench: K.C. Puri
CR No. 2933 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 2933 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 26.8.2011
...
Rajinder Kumar
................Petitioner
vs.
Kaushalya Devi
.................Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner
Sh. Vinod Verma, Advocate
for the respondent.
...
K.C. Puri, J.
This is a revision petition directed by tenant against the judgment dated 19.2.2011 passed by Sh. R.K. Dogra, Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction Act), Karnal, vide which the appeal preferred by the land lady Smt. Kaushlya Devi was accepted and eviction order was passed against the revisionist on the ground of personal necessity and building having become unfit for human habitation.
Briefly stated, Smt. Kaushlya Devi filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against Rajinder Kumar - tenant, now revisionist CR No. 2933 of 2011 -2- for eviction from Ist floor of the residential house. It is pleaded that Ist floor of the residential house in dispute was letted out to the Rajinder Kumar in the month of November 2003 for a rent of ` 600/- per month. The tenant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.2.2004 and he has failed to pay the same despite repeated requests. The house in dispute is also required by the land lady for personal necessity. Presently, she is residing at Panchkula and wants to shift to Gharaunda, where her other relatives are residing. The house in dispute has become unfit for human habitation and the structure may fall down at any time. Request for vacating the premises was made but in vain.
The claim in the petition was resisted by the tenant by alleging that the house in dispute was rented out in the month of October 2000 and not in the month of November 2003, at the rate of ` 400/- per month and not at the rate of ` 600/- per month. He has already paid the rent upto June 2007 and has tendered the demanded rent to avoid his eviction. It is further pleaded that the land lady does not need the house for personal necessity. The petitioner owns another house in Gharaunda. The premises is fit for human habitation. The ground floor of the house in dispute is vacant and is sufficient for the petitioner to reside. She has no intention to shift to Gharaunda. She is an old lady and her sons are well settled outside Gharaunda.
The petitioner filed rejoinder denying the contents of the written reply and reiterating the stand taken in the petition.
From the pleadings of parties, the Rent Controller, framed the following issues:-
CR No. 2933 of 2011 -3-
1. Whether the respondent is liable to the ejected from the demised premises on the grounds mentioned in the petition?
OPP
2. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition? OPR
3. Relief.
Learned Rent Controller, returned the finding on issue No. 1 against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent, on all the points i.e. regarding arrears of rent, bona fide personal necessity and building being unfit for human habitation. However, issue No.2 was decided against the tenant. In view of the finding on issue No.1, the eviction petition filed by the land lady was dismissed vide order dated 24.2.2010, passed by the Rent Controller, Karnal.
Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 24.2.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Karnal, the land lady filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, Karnal. The Appellate Authority under the Rent Act, accepted the appeal while reversing the findings of the Rent Controller in respect of bona fide personal necessity and building having become unfit for human habitation. However, the ground of eviction on non-payment of rent was affirmed.
Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 19.2.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority, the tenant has preferred the present revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that eviction order has been passed against the petitioner on the ground of personal CR No. 2933 of 2011 -4- necessity, as well as, building being unfit for human habitation. It is submitted that both the grounds are not available to the land lady. The land lady has taken a stand that the rate of rent is ` 600/- per month, but both the Courts below have returned the finding that rate of rent is ` 400/- per month. The land lady who can tell lie on material facts regarding rate of rent, has been wrongly believed by the Appellate Authority under the Rent Act. The land lady does not need the premises. She is unable to stay alone in the demised premises. Moreover, she has the ground floor with her in the premises. There is other house with the land lady. At this advanced age she cannot live alone at Gharaunda, which has no medical facilities. The land lady has to prove her bona fide personal necessity and in the present case, it was only the desire of land lady which has prevailed from the Appellate Authority regarding the bona fide personal necessity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the authorities reported as Chitter Kumar vs. Rattan Lall 1983 HRR456, Vidya Rattan Taneja and another vs. Ram Lal Sachdeva and another 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 640 and Mangat Ram vs. Om Parkash 1983 HRR 1.
On the other hand, counsel for the land lady has supported the judgment of the Appellate Authority.
I have considered the submission made by counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the file.
The Appellate Authority has returned the finding that in the old age, bonds of a person with the ancestral property are very high and the land lady is emotionally attached to live at Gharaunda. That CR No. 2933 of 2011 -5- being a finding of fact, cannot be interfered in the regular second appeal. It has come on the record that other distant relatives are also residing at Gharaunda, so at the old age if the land lady wants to live at her ancestral place, in that case, she cannot be restrained from fulfilling her wishes.
So far as authority in Chitter Kumar's case (Supra), is concerned, that authority is distinguishable. In that case, the land lord after retirement has engaged himself in a business. He had taken a stand that after leaving the business, he wants to live at his ancestral property. In the present case, there is nothing on the file that the land lady is doing any business or has any other attachment to Panchkula where her son is residing. So, the above said authority is distinguishable.
The authority in, Vidya Rattan Taneja's case (Supra) is also distinguishable as in that case there were three land lords and were duly settled in Delhi, Gurgaon and Chandigarh and wanted to vacate the premises situated at Sonepat and in those circumstances, necessity was not found to be bona fide. However, in this authority also, it has been laid down that land lord is best judge of his requirement.
The authority in Mangat Ram's case (Supra), is also distinguishable, as in that case bona fide necessity of the land lord was not proved. It is not proved on the file that the land lady is in possession of any other premises. It is also not proved that the ground floor is sufficient to accommodate the land lady.
Moreover, one another circumstance which militates the case CR No. 2933 of 2011 -6- of the revisionist is that according to himself, there is no connection of water supply and electricity in the demised premises. It is also admitted by the petitioner that he is working at Delhi. So, the Appellate Authority has rightly held that the tenant does not require the premises for his living.
So far as submission made by counsel for the revisionist that since the land lady has not been believed on the amount of rent and as such her testimony regarding the bona fide necessity should also not have been believed, is concerned, that submission is also without any substance. Both the Courts below have relied upon the testimony of RW-1 Lalit Kumar to assess the rate of rent. Although counsel for the land lady has submitted that the finding regarding rate of rent be decided in favour of land lady but since there is concurrent finding on rate of rent as ` 400/- per month, so that cannot be set aside in the present revision petition, more so when there is no ground for the same. However, the land lady cannot be disbelieved in respect of her bona fide necessity and in respect of the fact that the building has become unfit for human habitation.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that there is a report of Sub Divisional Officer, B&R, who was appointed as Local Commissioner. The said report has been discarded by the Appellate Authority on the ground that he was appointed as Local Commissioner without notice to the opposite party. The said report is admissible in evidence, in view of authorities reported as Umrao vs. Smt. Minu @ Manju Sanghi 1999 (2) RCR 320 and Hukam Chand vs. The Financial commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh 1983 PLR CR No. 2933 of 2011 -7-
306. I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission. Even if the report of the Local Commissioner is taken into consideration, in that case also, the land lady has been able to prove that the building has become unfit for human habitation. The Municipal Committee has issued notice for demolition of the premises. The Municipal Committee is an independent organization and after inspecting the condition of the building, the notice for demolition has been issued. The revisionist has failed to prove that the said notice is in any way procured. So, the finding of the Appellate Authority regarding the fact that the building has become unfit for human habitation, also does not call for any interference.
In view of the above discussion, the petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed with costs. The tenant shall surrender the possession of the premises within two months from today failing which, the land lady shall be entitled to get the possession by execution of the decree.
A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for compliance.
( K.C. Puri ) 26.8.2011 Judge chugh