Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kumar vs Mohinder Kumar on 18 February, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CR No. 280 of 2014 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CR No. 280 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.2.2014
Rajinder Kumar ......Petitioner
Versus
Mohinder Kumar .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Namit Gauttam,Advocate
for the petitioner.
--
SABINA, J.
Respondent had sought ejectment of the petitioner by moving a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on the ground of arrears of rent with effect from 1.6.2003 at monthly rent of `1800/- besides house tax, water tax and electricity tax and that the petitioner had created nuisance.
Petitioner, in his written statement, averred that the rate of rent was `400/- per month and not ` 1800/- per month as claimed by the respondent. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was admitted. The other contentions in the ejectment petition were denied.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:-
Raj Kumari2014.02.21 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 280 of 2014 (O&M) 2
"1.Whether the respondent had taken the demised premises on rent at the rate of Rs.1800/- per month and the respondent had executed rent note dated 03.07.1997 in this regard?OPA
2.Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent since 01.06.2003?OPA
3.Whether the applicant requires the demised premises for his bona fide requirement and for his own use and occupation?OPA
4.Whether the respondent has committed such act as amount to nuisance and is liable to be ejected on this ground?OPA
5.Relief."
Vide order dated 21.3.2011, the Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition. The said order was upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 24.8.2013. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-tenant.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
In the present case, the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties is not in dispute. So far as landlord is concerned, he claimed the rent at the rate of `1800/- per month,whereas, the petitioner averred that the rate of rent was `400/- per month. Respondent proved on record rent note Exhibit A1. As per the said rent note, the rate of rent was `1800/- per month. Raj Kumari Although, the petitioner had denied the execution of the rent note but 2014.02.21 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 280 of 2014 (O&M) 3 the same was duly proved on record by the respondent by examining the attesting witness-Vishal Kumar as AW4. The rent note was duly signed by the petitioner and there was nothing on record to suggest that the rent note had not been duly signed by the petitioner.
In order to establish the fact that the petitioner was not in arrears of rent, he proved on record two receipts Exhibits R1 and R2 vide which he had deposited rent at the rate of `400/- per month in the account of the respondent. Since the rate of rent had not been fixed at the rate of `400/- per month, as per the rent note proved on record, the Courts below rightly held that the receipts Exhibits R1 and R2 were manipulated to create a ground that the petitioner had already deposited the rent,whereas, it was not proved on record that the petitioner had deposited rent with effect from 1.6.2003 onwards.
So far as the ground taken by the respondent that he required the premises in question for his own personal use and occupation is concerned, respondent appeared in the witness box and deposed that the premises in question was required by him for his own personal use and occupation. The case of the respondent was that the portion in his occupation was not sufficient for his needs. Respondent was residing in the said portion along with his mother, who was suffering from various ailments and, consequently, his married sisters used to visit his house off and on and due to this reason, the accommodation in occupation of the petitioner was not sufficient. There is no reason to disbelieve the need put forth by the landlord. It is a settled proposition of law that the landlord is the Raj Kumari best judge qua his need and requirement. In these circumstances, 2014.02.21 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 280 of 2014 (O&M) 4 the Courts below rightly held that the premises in question was required by the landlord for his own personal use and occupation.
In order to prove the factum of nuisance created by the tenant, the landlord had deposed that whenever he demanded rent from the petitioner, he started abusing him and thereby created nuisance. Further, it was also established on record that the petitioner was habitual of committing theft of electricity and consequently, electric connection was disconnected. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the petitioner had committed such acts which amounts to nuisance.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Courts below have rightly allowed the ejectment petition. No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE February 18, 2014 arya Raj Kumari 2014.02.21 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document