Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Parshad vs Rajinder Kaur on 5 October, 2010
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: October 05, 2010
C.R. No. 3868 of 2010
Rajinder Parshad. .... Petitioner
Versus
Rajinder Kaur. ... Respondent
****
C.R. No. 3869 of 2010
Deepak Kumar. .... Petitioner
Versus
Rajinder Kaur. ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be
Allowed to see judgment?
2. To be referred to reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Divyanshu Jain, Advocate,
for the respondent (s).
Alok Singh, J.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, both the revision petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment and for the sake of brevity, facts of Civil C.R. No. 3868 of 2010 2 Revision No. 3868 of 2010 are being taken for the purpose of deciding the lis between the parties.
Tenant - revisionist has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the judgment dated 27.07.2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, as well as, judgment dated 13.03.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, thereby directing the eviction of the tenant - revisionist from the tenanted premises.
The brief facts of the present case, inter-alia, are that landlady - respondent herein has filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act against the tenant on the ground that tenant has not paid or tendered the rent at the rate of 300/- per month w.e.f. 01.06.2001 till date despite of repeated demands; the shop in suit along with adjoining shops in possession of other tenants are bonafidely required by the landlady - respondent herein for her own need and for that of her husband Dr. Inder Singh for setting up a coaching centre for Engineering students and the students of other allied studies. It has further been contended in the eviction petition that husband of the petitioner has retired as Professor from College of Agricultural Engineering Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, on 31.01.1998; after his retirement, he joined as Professor and Head of the Department of Food C.R. No. 3868 of 2010 3 Technology at Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Longowal on 15.04.1998 and worked there upto 14.10.1999; thereafter, he joined the said Institute as Visiting Professor and worked till May, 2000; after May, 2000, the petitioner and her husband cannot suffice in the meager pension received by the husband and in order to increase the income of the family, petitioner and her husband want to set up a Coaching Centre in the shop in question and adjoining shops.
Revisionist - tenant refuted the claim of the petitioner by way of filing written statement. It has been asserted by the tenant that landlady is in possession of a double storeyed kothi built in 900 sq. yards situated at Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. The upper story of the kothi was let out on a monthly rent of Rs.6500/-; landlady and her husband had sold the kothi constructed at Main Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana after the inception of the Act, 1949; husband of the landlady is getting pension about Rs.16000/- per month and also the landlady and her family is getting rent from the first floor of the kothi.
Learned Rent Controller having found the need of the landlady genuine, passed the eviction order against the tenant vide judgment dated 27.07.2007. Tenant went in appeal, which too was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.03.2010.
C.R. No. 3868 of 2010 4
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the tenant - revisionist, assisted by Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, vehemently argued that landlady has sold so many commercial properties around 1999, had there been any need, landlady would have not sold those properties. Mr. Agnihotri further argued that application moved by the tenant before the Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to place on record the certified copies of the sale deeds executed by the landlady and her husband was wrongly dismissed by the learned Appellate Court and therefore, tenant - revisionist could not show to the Appellate Authority that landlady has disposed of other commercial properties. Mr. Agnihotri further argued that a tenanted premises can be got vacated for personal use and not for the use of the family members.
Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent, assisted by Mr. Divyanshu Jain, Advocate, argued that even if all the sale deeds, copies of which are sought to be filed before the learned First Appellate Court and before this Court, are taken into consideration, would reveal that those properties were sold in the year 1999 and prior to the period, when husband of the landlady was in service. He further asserts that after the retirement in May, 2000, none of the property was alienated. Mr. Palli further C.R. No. 3868 of 2010 5 argued that all those properties were not suitable for the landlady or her husband and now if landlady is contending that demised premises is suitable for coaching classes, then neither tenant nor Rent Controller can dictate the terms to the landlady not to seek eviction of the demised premises and to accommodate herself in the other properties.
The Apex Court in Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in 1998(8) SCC 119, in paragraph 14 while interpreting the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, has held as under: -
"When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord in bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."C.R. No. 3868 of 2010 6
The Apex Court in the matter of Maganlal Vs. Nanasaheb 2009(1) Civil Court Cases 102 (SC) in paragraph 16 has held as under: -
"This Court in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 252 held that it is always a prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business, this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad, therefore, it is not genuine need. Further, it is held that it is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of the business."
From the dictum of the Apex Court, I have no hesitation to hold that Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide, rather, Rent Controller must proceed on the presumption that requirement is bona fide. In the opinion of this Court, need of the landlady is genuine and bona fide to establish the coaching classes for the increase of monthly income of the husband after his retirement. Every landlord has every right to increase the income neither tenant not Rent Controller can dictate that landlady should feel satisfied on the pension being received by the husband of the landlady. In the opinion of this Court, it is not open to the tenant to say that there is open C.R. No. 3868 of 2010 7 place where new construction can be raised to start coaching class. This Court is of the view that suitability of the accommodation as per the requirement of the landlady is a personal decision of the landlady which cannot be said to be wrong by the tenant or Rent Controller.
In the opinion of this Court, merely because certain properties were sold by the landlady, when husband of the landlady was in service, will not make landlady disentitled to seek eviction of the tenant to start coaching classes after the retirement of the husband of the landlady.
Since both the Courts below have found need of the landlady is genuine and bona fide, I find no ground or justification to interfere with those findings. The apprehension of the tenant that landlady shall not start coaching classes in the demised premises after getting it vacated and shall transfer the same after receiving huge market value is baseless and misconceived.
This Court in the matter of Balbir Kaur and others vs. Roop Lal and others in Civil Revision No. 3105 of 2010 decided on 23.08.2010 has observed as under:-
"Mr. Jain further argued that after getting the demise premises vacated, landlords will not start business therein and shall alienate the property or let it out at exorbitant rent.C.R. No. 3868 of 2010 8
Apprehension of the argument of the learned counsel for the tenant seems to be misconceived in view of Section 13(4) of the Act. To appreciate the argument of Mr. Jain, learned senior advocate, this Court would like to reproduce Section 13(4) of the Act, which reads as under: -
"13(4) Where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building or rented land in pursuance of an order under subparagraph (i) or subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (3) does not himself occupy it or, if possession was obtained by him for his family in pursuance of an order under sub-paragraph (i-a) of paragraph (a) of sub-section (3), his family does not occupy the residential building, or, if possession was obtained by him on behalf of his son in pursuance of an order under subparagraph (iv) of paragraph (a) of sub- section (3), his son does not occupy it for the purpose for which possession was obtained, for a continuous period of twelve months from the date of obtaining possession or where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building under sub-paragraph (iii) of the aforesaid paragraph (a) puts that building to any use or lets it out to any tenant other than C.R. No. 3868 of 2010 9 the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of such building or rented land and the Controller shall make an order accordingly."
From the perusal of sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, it is clear that safeguard is provided by the legislature, if landlord or his family for whose benefit eviction was obtained, fails to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months from the date of obtaining possession or where he puts that building to any use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order and direction that he shall be restored to possession of such building.
In the opinion of this Court, tenant has legal remedy available with him under Section 13(4) of the Act, in case landlords do not occupy the building for the purpose for which it was got vacated or alienate it or lease it out as apprehended by Mr. Arun Jain, learned senior advocate.
In view of Section 13(4) of the Act, need alleged by the landlords must be presumed to be correct and genuine, unless of course, proved otherwise. In the present case, tenant could not prove that the need of C.R. No. 3868 of 2010 10 the landlords is not genuine. Rather, on the basis of the apprehension, tenant is denying need of the landlords and that apprehension is baseless as discussed hereinabove."
In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the view taken by both the Courts below.
Revision petition is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, two months' time is granted to the tenant to handover peaceful vacant possession to the landlady.
A photocopy of the order be placed on the file of connected case.
October 05, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge