Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maqsood Ahmed vs Ajay Sharma on 4 July, 2011
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CR No.625 of 2011 (O&M) -1-
******
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.625 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision:04.07.2011.
Maqsood Ahmed ...Petitioner
Versus
Ajay Sharma ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. K.S.Bhullar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate,
for the respondent.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The tenant is in revision against order of the learned Appellate Authority by which order of the learned Rent Controller has been reversed and he has been asked to vacate the demised premises on account of bona fide necessity of the landlord.
In brief, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] in respect of shop No.1854, near Smadhi Gate, Main Bazar, Manimajra, Chandigarh which was purchased by him on 08.03.2004 and was in occupation of the tenant at the monthly rent of `250/- besides water and electricity charges. The landlord prayed for eviction of the tenant, inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent from March, 2004 @ `250/- per month and his personal CR No.625 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ****** necessity. It was alleged that he himself is in occupation of a tenanted premises in Sector-25, Panchkula where he is doing the business of property dealing under the name and style of M/s. R.P.Sharma Property Consultants. In reply, besides denying his status of landlord and ownership, the tenant alleged that the landlord is doing the business of clothes along with his father in shop No.145, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra and has recently constructed a showroom near Rana Haveli, Manimajra which is a three storey building and is in occupation of the landlord and his father. It was denied that the landlord is running his business in Sector-25, Panchkula. In view of the aforesaid pleadings, issues were framed on 10.03.2006 and in order to substantiate their respective case, the landlord examined Suraj Bhaj (PW1), Gurmukh Singh (PW2), Ram Murti (PW3) and Rajinder Parshad (PW4), whereas the tenant examined Ramesh Kumar (RW1), Vakil Chand (RW2) and himself as (RW3). Insofar as the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent is concerned, it had become redundant as the rent was tendered by the tenant as assessed by the learned Rent Controller on 31.01.2006, but both the Courts below expressed their different opinion on the issue of personal necessity of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller had observed that the landlord has failed to bring on record material to show that he has been doing the business of property dealing, therefore, he cannot ask the tenant to vacate the demised premises for the said purpose and that he has been in business with his father at shop No.145, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra. On the contrary, learned Appellate Authority has found that shop No.145, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra is in possession of Rajinder Parshad Sharma, father of the landlord, who is the sole proprietor of the firm M/s. Sharma Emporium since 1997 which is evident from the sale deed dated 08.07.1997 Ex.PW4/1 and the landlord has no concern with the said business. It was also observed that showroom near Rana Haveli, Manimajra is in the name of Sandeep Sharma, brother of the landlord which is clear from the sale deed Ex.PW2/2 and the demised premises is the only property owned by the landlord which is apparent from document Ex.PW1/A. The learned Appellate Authority had also found that the landlord had brought on record original rent note of his tenanted premises of Sector-25, Panchkula which was taken on rent CR No.625 of 2011 (O&M) -3- ****** on 15.02.2005, two months prior to the filing of the eviction petition, from which it was found by the learned Appellate Authority that the landlord was in dire need of the tenanted premises for the purpose of running his own business.
Assailing order of the Appellate Authority, learned counsel for the tenant has argued that the case set up by the landlord is that he is in possession of a tenanted premises before filing of the eviction petition, therefore, in terms of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. Atma Devi and others, 1985 P.L.R. 751, he does not satisfy the sub-clause (b) of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act because the Full Bench has held that "for seeing the occupation of landlord for purposes of sub-clause (b) of Section 13(3)(a)(i) only possession as of right whether as owner, landlord, tenant, mortgagee with possession or in any other form, recognized by law, has to be taken into consideration. The sole basis of enacting sub-clause (b) was that if the landlord is occupying any other residential building in his own right, that is possession recognized by law, then he could not claim eviction from another building. By no stretch of reasoning the words "another building" can be interpreted to mean that the building in occupation of the landlord must be his own or that he must hold that building in the same character which he claims qua the building from which the ejectment of the tenant is sought". It is also argued that the landlord is working with his father in shop No.145, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra and has not placed on record any material to show that he has been doing the business of property dealing, therefore, his claim that he requires the demised premises for running the business of property dealing is only a ploy to seek eviction of the tenant.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the landlord has argued that shop No.145, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra is owned by his father who is running a sole proprietorship firm in it under the name and style of Sharma Emporium in which he has no participation and except for the demised premises he does not own or possess any other commercial building in the urban area of Chandigarh. The office opened by him in Sector-25, Panchkula is in a different urban area which cannot be made the basis for denying the right to the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant on account of his personal necessity CR No.625 of 2011 (O&M) -4- ****** to run his business in his own premises instead of running it in a tenanted premises. Moreover, the property of Sector-25, Panchkula is governed by the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short "the Act of 1973"] and not by the Act. In this regard, he has relied upon two decisions of this Court in the case of M/s. Ram Dass Hira Lal and another v. Sunil Kumar Sekhri and others, 2007(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 313 and in the case of Sham Lal v. Raj Kumar, 2007(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 83.
I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
The landlord has proved his ownership over the demised premises by virtue of the sale deed which could not be assailed by the tenant who was already occupying the demised premises when it was purchased by the landlord, therefore, in terms of Section 2(c) of the Act, the respondent had become his landlord as well because he derived the title from the earlier owner. The tenant has failed to prove that the landlord has any share in shop No.145, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra which was purchased by his father Rajinder Parshad Sharma in 1997 and is running his sole proprietorship firm in it under the name and style of Sharma Emporium. The tenant has also failed to prove that the property near Rana Haveli, which is allegedly a three storey building, is owned and possessed by the landlord, rather it has come on record that it is owned and possessed by his brother Sandeep Sharma. Insofar as the judgment in Ramesh Kumar's case (supra) is concerned, that would also not help the tenant because the landlord is not in possession of any non-residential building in the urban area of Chandigarh as he has opened his shop under the name and style of M/s. R.P.Sharma Property Consultants in Sector-25, Panchkula which is an altogether different urban area which is governed by the Act of 1973 , whereas Section 13(3)(a)(i)(b) talks of occupation of the landlord of such building in the same urban area. On the contrary, in Sham Lal's case (supra) and in the case of M/s. Ram Dass Hira Lal and another (supra), this Court has repeatedly held that if the landlord is running his business in the tenanted premises, he is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant from the premises owned by him if he requires it for his personal necessity.
CR No.625 of 2011 (O&M) -5-****** Thus, looking from all angles, I have found that there is no error committed by the learned Appellate Authority in considering the evidence on record and passing the order of eviction against the tenant. Hence, the present revision is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
No costs.
July 04, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE