Punjab-Haryana High Court
Megh Raj vs Deepak Garg & Another on 23 April, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
CR No.6530 of 2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL REVISION NO.6530 OF 2011
DATE OF DECISION: 23rd April, 2012
Megh Raj
.... Petitioner
Versus
Deepak Garg & another
.... Respondents
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
****
PRESENT: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
L.N. MITTAL, J. (Oral)
This is revision petition by tenant Megh Raj under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short, the Act), after the tenant failed before both the Authorities below.
Deepak Garg-respondent No.1 herein - landlord filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act against the petitioner-tenant and his son Chander Parkash (respondent No.2 herein - alleged sub-tenant) seeking their ejectment from the demised shop. Ejectment was sought on two grounds i.e. subletting by tenant-petitioner herein in favour of respondent No.2 and bonafide requirement of the demised property by the landlord for carrying on business of jewellery.
Relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner herein and respondent No.1 herein was not disputed. However, grounds of subletting and personal necessity of the landlord were controverted. It was pleaded that respondent No.1 being son of the tenant was assisting him in the business. It was also pleaded that father of the landlord was working as jeweller in a CR No.6530 of 2011 -2- different shop. The demised shop has been purchased to sell it for a higher amount after getting it vacated. Two other shops have been purchased by the father of the landlord in the name of his other son Amit and the said shops are being used by the father of the landlord. Various other pleas were also raised.
Learned Rent Controller, Gurgaon vide impugned judgment dated 14.02.2011 held that subletting was not proved, but held the bonafide requirement of the landlord to be proved and ordered ejectment of the tenant on this ground. Appeal against the said judgment preferred jointly by both the tenant and sub-tenant has been dismissed by learned Appellate Authority vide impugned judgment dated 04.06.2011. Feeling aggrieved, tenant has filed this revision petition.
Along with revision petition, tenant has also moved CM No.25676-CII of 2011 for additional evidence to prove that the landlord has been enrolled as Advocate w.e.f. 14.03.2009 and is practicing in Civil Courts, Gurgaon, vide certificate Annexure A-1 issued by Bar Association, Gurgaon.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner contended that respondent No.1-landlord has since started practice as Advocate in Civil Courts, Gurgaon and, therefore, ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the demised shop on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord for running jewellery business cannot be sustained.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but the same cannot be accepted. The ejectment petition was filed on 12.04.2007 i.e. five years ago. The landlord knew that actual ejectment would come after years. Consequently he could not be expected to sit idle and unemployed during this CR No.6530 of 2011 -3- long period. Had he not started any other avocation, he would have starved. He could not be expected to beg, borrow or steal or to live on the mercy of others to keep his soul and body together during this long period. Merely, because in the meantime, the landlord got himself enrolled as Advocate and also might have started practice as an Advocate at Gurgaon, it does not dis- entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant from the demised shop on the ground of his personal necessity.
Even by way of additional evidence, it is not sought to be proved that the landlord has flourishing or at least satisfactory practice as Advocate. Moreover, Rent Controller decided the ejectment petition vide judgment dated 14.02.2011 i.e almost two years after the landlord was allegedly enrolled as an Advocate. However, no effort was made during pendency of the ejectment petition to establish this fact nor it was sought to be established in appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, even assuming that landlord has got himself enrolled as Advocate, ejectment order on the ground of necessity of landlord cannot be set aside on this ground.
It has come in evidence that father of the landlord is running jewellery shop in a rented shop under Punjab Wakf Board. Tenant has also admitted in the witness box that landlord has experience in the business of jewellery. Consequently bonafide requirement of the landlord for running business of jewellery is fully established. It is not only his requirement but also requirement of his father to run the business of jewellery. Concurrent finding recorded by the Authorities below in this regard does not suffer from any infirmity, much less perversity, impropriety, illegality or jurisdictional error nor the same is based on misreading and misappreciation of evidence. On the contrary, the said finding is the only reasonable finding that can be CR No.6530 of 2011 -4- arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record. So the said finding does not warrant any interference.
It is also worth mentioning that petitioner's own son Chander Parkash alleged sub-tenant also filed CR No.4209 of 2011 challenging the same judgments of the Authorities below. The said revision petition was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 26.07.2011 but nine months' time was granted for vacating the demised shop. The petitioner herein who is none else but real father of Chander Parkash, both having cordial relations, has filed this separate revision petition and is also pressing the same in spite of order dated 26.07.2011 passed in revision petition preferred by petitioner's own son who was allegedly assisting the petitioner in running the business in the demised shop.
It is thus manifest that the instant revision petition is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. It is also highly significant to notice that this revision petition has been filed on 02.09.2011 i.e. after dismissal of the revision petition filed by the petitioner's son. Consequently petitioner herein has to be subjected to exemplary cost to curb such frivolous litigation which is nothing but grave abuse of process of the Court resulting in wastage of precious time of the Court.
The revision petition is thus found to be meritless and frivolous and is, therefore, dismissed in limine with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of this Court within one month from today failing which the case shall be listed for this purpose.
(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 23.04.2012 'raj'