Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukesh And Others vs Raj Bala And Others on 25 November, 2008
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.3457 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25th November, 2008
Mukesh and others
... Petitioners
Versus
Raj Bala and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner tenant has failed in two courts below, solely on the ground that he had failed to substantiate his pleadings in the Court, while appearing as a witness and therefore, he has not been able to deny the ground of personal necessity raised by the landlord.
Concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below that premises are required by the respondent landlord on the ground of personal necessity, are assailed. In the written statement, it was stated that one room vacated by the petitioner is being used for commercial reason and not for the residential purposes. As stated earlier, to support this part of the pleadings, no evidence was led. Having stated the reason as to why in two courts below, petitioner remained unsuccessful, brief facts are required to be recapitulated from the judgments of two courts below.
One Phulla was the owner of three residential premises in the same locality. He had two wives. From the first wife, Pritam Chand and Dhan Singh were born and from the second wife, Kallua, Buddhu and Sundru were born. Present petition was instituted by Pritam Chand and Civil Revision No. 3457 of 2008 (O&M) 2 legal representatives of Dhan Singh. During the pendency of the petition, Pritam Chand also died and was substituted by his daughter Raj Bala. These facts have been gathered from the written statement filed by the petitioner tenant. However, in the eviction petition, it was stated that Pritam Chand and Dhan Singh purchased a house situated in Rangia Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Karnal vide a sale deed dated 7th July, 1983. In the eviction petition, ground of non-payment of rent and arrears was pleaded along with the fact that the tenant without the consent, had constructed a latrine on the ground floor, which has diminished the value and utility of the house in question and amounts to material impairment. Third ground pleaded was that the premises are required for personal use and occupation. It was stated that in House No.3107, there were two rooms and one verandah in which Pritam Chand and his wife and his married daughter, son-in-law and four children were residing. In House No. 4398, brother of Dhan Singh and Kishan Chand were residing. The house consisted of six rooms, where Dhan Singh's wife along with eight children and Kishan Chand's along with four children were residing. House No. 3268 was inherited by Pritam Chand, Dhan Singh, Kishan Chand and four more brothers.
In the written statement, ground of personal necessity was denied. It was further stated that since tender of the rent has been made, ground of non-payment of rent is no longer available. Regarding material impairment, it was stated that latrine has been affixed by the Municipal Committee in pursuance of a policy of Haryana Government on the subsidized price. Therefore, value of the property has been enhanced. Rent Controller, after the completion of the pleadings, had drawn following issues:
1. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent? OPP
2. Whether the respondent has impaired the value and utility of the demised premises? OPP Civil Revision No. 3457 of 2008 (O&M) 3
3. Whether the petitioners require the demised premises for their own use? OPP
4. Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to file and maintain the present petition? OPR
5. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-
joinder of necessary parties? OPR.
6. Relief.
Manoj Kumar son of Dhan Singh appeared as PW-1.
Harvinder Singh Draftsman appeared as PW-2. Site plan (Ex.P-1) was tendered. On behalf of the tenant, only Jasso son of Teja Ram appeared as RW-1. Rent Controller held that since the rent has been tendered, ground of non-payment of rent is not available. Rent Controller further held that there is no material alternation or addition, from which it can be inferred that the value and utility of the property in question has been diminished. Rent Controller further held that since there is a large family residing in one house, therefore, it was held that premises are required for the personal necessity. Court also took into consideration the fact that petitioner tenant failed to produce any document, which could prove that the deposition made by the landlord was false. It was stated that only witness Jasso son of Teja Ram was examined as RW-1 and during his examination in-chief, he did not controvert the plea of personal necessity raised by the landlord. In view of this, Rent Controller ordered eviction of the present petitioner.
Aggrieved against the same, an appeal was filed. Appellate authority also took into consideration the fact that Jasso son of Teja Ram, witness of the tenant has not stated that accommodation is sufficient with the landlord and held that ground of personal necessity is made out. It will be pertinent to mention here that the appellate authority had decided the case against the tenant on 19th December, 2007. After about one year, in the present revision petition, the findings of two courts below are sought to Civil Revision No. 3457 of 2008 (O&M) 4 be assailed. Mr.Ashish Aggarwal appearing for the petitioner tenant has failed to state as to why sufficient evidence was not led to controvert the plea of personal necessity raised by the landlord. Even otherwise, perusal of judgments of two courts below shows that courts below were justified in arriving at a finding that the legal heirs of the landlord require the premises in question for their own use and occupation.
Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 25, 2008 rps