Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Singla vs Prithvi Pal Singh And Anr on 24 February, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:026643
121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-7009-2024(O&M)
DECIDED ON: 24.02.2025
.2025
Sandeep Singla ....Petitioner
Versus
Prithvi Pal Singh and Another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL.
Present: Mr. Karan Monga, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate
for the respondents-
respondents caveators.
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition assails the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority, Patiala dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant tenant against the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Court of learned Rent Controller, Patiala vide which the eviction petition filed by the respondents-landlords landlords was allowed.
2. The respondents-landlords r preferred a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act Act, 1949 (for short 'the Rent Act') for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from shop No.1 situated at Soodan Street, Gaushala Road, near Sher-e-Punjab Sher Punjab Market, Patiala (for short 'the demised premises') on the grounds ground of non-payment payment of rent and bona fide necessity.. It was averred that the demised premises had been taken on rent by the petitioner-tenant tenant from Krishan Kumar, father of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 (sister of respondent No.1). After the death of Krishan Kumar, the respondents-landlords respondents had steppe stepped d into the shoes of their father and the petitioner-tenant petitioner had become a tenant under them. He started paying rent to respondent No.1 which was initially Rs.3,200/ Rs.3,200/- per month and after 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 28-02-2025 00:40:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:026643 CR-7009-2024 (O&M) -2- increase from time to time, the same was Rs.5,000/- per month. The rent had not been paid from 01.04.2018 and further the demised premises was required for the personal use and occupation of respondent No.1, as he wanted to settle his wife Kavita Bala in the demised premises so that she could run the business of a beauty parlour. It was averred that she possessed the experience of Beauty and Culture and had also completed a Course in this regard.
3. The eviction petition was opposed by the petitioner-tenant. The relationship of landlord and tenant was denied so was the rate of rent. A stand was taken that the petitioner-tenant had in fact taken the demised premises on rent from one Anil Kumar and on his asking, Rs.475/- per month as rent was paid to Krishan Kumar, father of the respondents. After the death of Krishan Kumar, on the asking of Anil Kumar, he had started paying rent of Rs.800/- per month to the respondents but no receipt was ever issued by them. All other averments were denied. It was denied that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent or that respondent No.1 required the demise premises for his own use and occupation. It was also averred that the respondents were in possession of more shops on the first floor of the demised premises and one shop on the ground floor as well. It was averred that the respondents in fact had six shops in all out of which four were on the first floor and two were on the ground floor.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
"1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for eviction of respondent from the shops in question on the ground of personal necessity, as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the present petition is maintainable in its present form? OPP
3. Whether the rate of rent is Rs.800/- per month for both the shops as prayed by the respondent? OPR
4. Relief."
2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 28-02-2025 00:40:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:026643 CR-7009-2024 (O&M) -3-
5. Parties led their respective evidence.
6. The eviction petition filed by the respondents was allowed vide order dated 08.02.2024 by learned Rent Controller, Patiala and the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2024 by learned Appellate Authority, Patiala leading to the filing of the present revision petition.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the decisions of the Appellate Authority and the Court of learned Rent Controller only on the ground of bona fide necessity and has not assailed the findings as regards the relationship of landlord and tenant etc. or arrears of rent. He submits that respondent No.1 was not able to prove that he required the demised premises for use by his wife for running a beauty parlour. Learned counsel submits that first of all, the wife of respondent No.1 did not step into the witness box to depose about her need and bona fide necessity. He further submits that no evidence as regards any experience qua running of a beauty parlour was led. He further submits that other shops were available to the respondents which could have been utilized for the need of respondent No.1, if any.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-caveators submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by both the Courts. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner-tenant has in fact vacated the demised premises long back and is unnecessarily pursuing the present revision petition.
10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
11. Since there is no challenge to the findings on the relationship of tenant and landlord and arrears of rent, there is no necessity of going into the 3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 28-02-2025 00:40:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:026643 CR-7009-2024 (O&M) -4- same. The only challenge is to the findings as regards bona fide need and necessity of the demised premises for the use of the same by wife of respondent No.1 for opening a beauty parlour.
12. It is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his requirements and a tenant is no one to dictate terms and conditions to the landlord. In the case of 'Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery and Co'., 2001 (1) RCR (Rent) 135 (SC), the Supreme Court of India enunciated the said principle. Further, in the case of 'Janak Dulari Khosla Vs. Jaswinder Singh', 2003 (2) Rent Law Reported 139 (P&H), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery and Co'. (supra), held that once a landlord pleads personal need and enters the witness box in support of his/her case, the landlord cannot be disbelieved unless the need pleaded by the landlord could be unfounded, unreasonable or fanciful or unless there was material to show that the need was not genuine. In the case of 'Rishi Kumar Govil Vs. Maqsoodan and Others', 2007 (1) RCR (Rent) 405, the Supreme Court of India reiterated the said principle;
"19. In Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery and Co., 2000(1) RCR(Rent) 135 (SC) it was held that it is the choice of the landlord to choose the place for the business which is most suitable for him. He has complete freedom in the matter. In Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastava, 2001(1) RCR(Rent) 221 (SC) it was held that the need of the landlord is to be seen on the date of application for release. In Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.V. Krishnan, 1987(2) RCR(Rent) 580 : 1996(5) SCC 353 it was held that the landlord is the best Judge of his requirement and Courts have no concern to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. The bonafide personal need is a question of fact and should not be normally interfered with. The High Court noted that when the Prescribed Authority passed the order son of the respondent- landlady was 20 years old and the shop was sought to be released for the purpose of settling him in business. More than 20 years have elapsed and the son has become more than 40 years of age and she has 4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 28-02-2025 00:40:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:026643 CR-7009-2024 (O&M) -5- not been able to establish him as she has still to get the possession of the shop and the litigation of the dispute is still subsisting. The licence for repairing fire arms can only be obtained when there is a vacant shop available and in the absence of any vacant shop, licence cannot be obtained by him. Therefore, the High Court came to the conclusion concurring with that of the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority that the need of the landlady is bonafide and genuine. Considering the factual findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority, Appellate Authority and analysed by the High Court, there is no scope for any inference in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, considering the period for which the premises in question are in the occupation of the appellant time is granted till 31st December, 2007 to vacate the premises subject to filing of an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within a period of 2 weeks to deliver the vacant possession on or before the stipulated date. There will be no order as to costs."
In the case of 'Atma S.Berar Vs. Mukhtiar Singh', 2003 (1) Rent Law Reporter 186, the Supreme Court of India held as under:-
"9. In Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander & Ors, (1988)3 RCR SCC 131, M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the three-Judges Bench, said "Statutes enacted to afford protection to tenants from eviction on the basis of contractual rights of the parties make the resumption of possession by the landlord subject to the satisfaction of certain statutory conditions. One of them is the bonafide requirement of the landlord, variously described in the statutes as "bonafide requirement", "reasonable requirement", "bonafide and reasonable requirement" or, as in the case of the present statute, merely referred to as "landlord requires for his own use". But the essential idea basic to all such cases is that the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith; and that, further, the court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that need. Landlord's desire for possession, however honest it might otherwise be, has inevitably a subjective element in it and that, that desire, to become a "requirement" in law must have the objective element of a "need". It must also be such that the court considers it reasonable and, therefore, eligible to be gratified. In doing so, the court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant is not rendered merely illusory or whittled down.
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 28-02-2025 00:40:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:026643
CR-7009-2024 (O&M) -6-
10. In Gulabbai v. Nalin Narsi Vohra & Ors, 1991(2) RCR 453 (SC), reiterating the view taken in Bega Begum v. Abdul Ahad Khan, (1979)1 SCC 273, it was held that the words "reasonable requirement"
undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire."
13. Similarly, in the case of 'Natha alias Jeewan Saini Versus Ashok Kumar and another', 2016 (4) RCR (Civil) 648 (P&H), it was held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as under:-
"14. The proposition of law as settled in Parikshat Suri and others v. Ashok Kohli and another, 2009(2) RCR 87 is being followed to enumerate the bona fide requirement of landlord where his bona fide cannot be questioned by the tenant. The landlord would be the best judge of his requirement. The lack of bonafides of the landlord viz-a-viz his requirement cannot be questioned by the tenant on hypothetical basis and the landlord would have complete freedom to decide nature of business which would carry on in the demised premises.
15. Similarly, in view of Anil Kumar v. Harpal Singh, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 319, the landlord if establishes existence of personal need then he is entitled to raise presumption in law that such need is bona fide enough to oust the tenant. Thereafter, the onus heavily shifts upon the tenant to show and establish that the need of the landlord is not bona fide."
14. In the case of 'Kailash Kumar and others Vs. Smt.Surinder Kaur', 2009 (2) RCR (Rent) 381, it was held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that the need of the family was to be determined by the landlord and not by the tenant. In the case of 'Arjun Dass Vs. Smt.Birinder Kaur and another' 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 156, it was held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that when a tenant was enjoying the fruits of his property for a long time and had gained substantially by working there, he should not dis-entitle his landlord from enjoying the fruits of the property, especially when it is proved that the need of the landlord is bona fide.
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 28-02-2025 00:40:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:026643
CR-7009-2024 (O&M) -7-
15. Reverting to the facts of the present case, no evidence was produced on record to prove that there were six shops owned by the respondents. Respondent No.1, while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, stated that he and his sister (respondent No.2) owned three shops and one residential house which include the shop in dispute. The second shop was in possession of his sister in which she was doing the work of stationary and the third shop had been rented to one Vijay Kapoor. Further, he also stated that his wife wanted to open a beauty parlour in the demised premises. The argument that no evidence was produced to prove that the wife of respondent No.1 had some experience in starting the work of a beauty parlour is devoid of merit. Such businesses do not require any specific experience and it is not unknown that many women run such businesses. Be that as it may, a certificate of Course of Beauty and Culture was produced on record as Ex.P- 76 and to rebut the same, no evidence to the contrary was led by the petitioner-tenant. The argument, therefore, falls to the ground.
16. The argument that the wife of respondent No.1 did not step into the witness box to state about her need is also devoid of merit because respondent No.1 duly stepped into the witness box and deposed about the need of the demised premises for running a business of a beauty parlour. In the case of 'Rajiv Gupta and Another Vs. Ram Phal Gupta', 2019 (1) RCR (Rent) 343, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was dealing with an identical situation. In that case, an eviction petition had been filed by the landlord on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of the son of the landlord. However, the son was not produced as a witness. The Court of the learned Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority allowed the eviction petition. The objection of the son not having been examined was taken up before this Court and the Co-ordinate Bench rejected the said contention while relying 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 28-02-2025 00:40:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:026643 CR-7009-2024 (O&M) -8- upon a judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Mehmooda Gulshan Vs. Javaid Hussain Mungloo', 2017 (1) RCR (Rent) 273 and held as under:
"21. Thus, the question is whether there is a reasonable requirement by the landlord of the premises. This would depend on whether the landlord has been able to establish a genuine element of need for the premises. What is a genuine need would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Merely because the landlord has not examined the member of the family who intends to do business in the premises, he cannot be nonsuited in case he has otherwise established a genuine need. The need is a matter of appreciation of evidence, and once there is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence on the need, the said finding of fact cannot be reopened........ "
17. I concur with the said view and hold that the non-examination of the wife of respondent No.1 as a witness would not cause any dent in the case of the respondents/landlords and that the evidence led by them was sufficient to prove their bona fide need. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Authority or the Court of learned Rent Controller, Patiala warranting interference in Revisional jurisdiction.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
24.02.2025 JUDGE
Prince Chawla
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 28-02-2025 00:40:14 :::