Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash Sharma vs Narayan Dass Tuli & Ors on 20 July, 2012
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
C.R. No.4224 of 2012(O&M) #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.4224 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision:-20.07.2012
Om Parkash Sharma.
......Petitioner.
Versus
Narayan Dass Tuli & Ors.
......Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. SKS Bedi, Advocate for the caveators/respondents.
***
JASWANT SINGH, J.
CM No.17648-CII of 2012 has been filed for placing on record copies of photographs and site plan as Annexures A-1 & A-2.
For the reasons stated in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of Om Parkash, petitioner, the same is allowed and Annexures A-1 & A-2 are taken on record.
C.R. No.4224 of 2012
Om Parkash Sharma arrayed as tenant no.1, has filed the present revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the order of reversal, whereby the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide its order dated 02.05.2012 has reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh dated C.R. No.4224 of 2012(O&M) #2# 30.04.2009.
Brief facts for proper adjudication of the present revision are that the landlords had filed the petition under Section 13 of the Act for eviction of the tenants from a garage-cum-store no.3 situated in sector 22-D, Chandigarh on the ground that they required the same for their own use as they want the demised premises to be used for parking their vehicles. It was stated that since they have no parking place in their house, therefore, they require the said garage for the parking of their vehicles and storing the vehicle parts. Thus, ejectment was sought by the landlords for the above said reasons.
Upon notice, respondent-revision petitioner denied the allegations of bonafide necessity and stated that it was only a ploy to get the premises vacated and then let it out on a higher rate of rent. Remaining contents were denied and prayer was made for dismissal of the petition.
From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both the sides led their evidence in support of their respective claims and after appreciating their evidence learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition vide its order dated 30.04.2009 and the findings thereof have been reversed by learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide its judgment dated 02.05.2012. Hence the present revision.
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh has committed grave error by reversing the findings of the learned Rent Controller who had passed a well reasoned C.R. No.4224 of 2012(O&M) #3# order. It was contended that through a CM NO.17649-CII of 2012 moved under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC it is proved that the landlord has an intention only to let out the premises again as it is clear from the photographs Annexure P-1 whereby landlord has put up a board of 'To Let'.
After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority has passed a well reasoned order and the contentions raised before this Court do not hold any forte. It is not in dispute that the landlords had been able to prove that they along with their sons were maintaining three luxury cars and when such is the situation, the requirement of a garage cannot be termed by any stretch of imagination to be a luxury. It is also a matter of common knowledge that if a car is parked in a garage, it shall be more safe instead of the same being parked outside. If a car is being parked outside it also endangers the owner of his vehicle being stolen by thieves. Regarding the abovesaid observation, it would be relevant to reproduce the findings returned by learned Appellate Authority, which in the opinion of this Court clinches the matter and demolishes the stand taken by the tenants before this Court:-
" The petition was filed in the year 2004 and circumstances have changed greatly since then. In those days, there was a limited class of people who could afford a car and one family ordinarily did not own more than one car. It was in those circumstances that Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that a family does not need more than one garage and to allow more would be catering to a rich landlord's luxury, disregarding the hardship of the tenant. The landlords in our case belong to a business family, are well settled in life. The family owns three cars which is not an uncommon feature these days.
C.R. No.4224 of 2012(O&M) #4# Moreover, there is no garage in their house, only a shed which they use for parking one of their three cars. The other two remain parked outside on the road, exposed to sun and rain. As discussed before, the question of bonafide personal need is a question of fact which has to be decided in the peculiar facts of each case, which in no two cases can be identical. Moreover, it is not the prerogative of the court or of the tenant to advise the landlords as to how and in which manner they should park their cars and the bonafide requirement of the landlords has to be judged from their point of view. If the landlords feel that parking their car outside the house, is not safe, they can always ask the tenant to vacate the garage for their bonafide use. Support to this view can be had from Sudershan Lal Aggarwal Vs. Girdhari Lal Jain 1971 RCR 1021 (Delhi), Subash Chander Gupta Vs. Vasudev Kumar 2009(1) RLR 654 (Delhi) and S. Logannathan Vs. Manmal Sur 2005 (2) RCR 671 (Madras). The findings of learned Rent Controller under issue no.1 are clearly erroneous and are hereby set aside. Issue no.1 is determined in favour of the landlords."
As is clear from the above referred paragraph, the learned Appellate Authority has appropriately passed the order after considering the contentions of both the parties and I do not find any merit in the arguments raised before me.
Before parting with this judgment it is appropriate to deal with the application moved by the petitioner Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC whereby he is harping upon the photographs as well as the site plan to prove that the landlord has already cleared his intention to let out the premises in dispute. Further through the site plan, the petitioner is trying to prove the C.R. No.4224 of 2012(O&M) #5# fact that to reach the demised premises the landlord shall have to traverse a long distance.
I have considered this application and have also appreciated the arguments that have been put forth concerning this application, but the same are devoid of any merit and are hereby rejected. If the landlord tries to let out the premises and subsequently is successful in letting out the same, there is a specific provision under the Act to protect such kind of Acts done by the landlord. Under Section 13(4) of the Act a specific provision has been made for repossession of the premises if the landlord lets out the same to any other tenant although he had got the premises vacated on any of the grounds as mentioned in the Act itself. Therefore, the apprehension that has been raised before this Court regarding the letting out of the property again by the landlord stands duly covered under the statute itself which protects such tenants and goes down heavily upon such landlords.
In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision, the same is hereby dismissed.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE July 20, 2012 Vinay