Punjab-Haryana High Court
Navsher Singh Nain vs Jai Kiran Walia And Others on 28 March, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Civil Revision No. 2286 of 2014 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 2286 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 28.3.2014.
Navsher Singh Nain .......Petitioner
Versus
Jai Kiran Walia and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. H.S.Bhullar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
SABINA, J.
Narrottame Walia and respondent No. 2 had filed the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('Act' for short) as applicable to U.T., Chandigarh seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question. The Rent Controller vide order dated 24.12.2010 conditionally allowed the ejectment petition on the ground of non- payment of rent. So far as the ground of personal necessity is concerned, the same was rejected by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the said order, petitioner as well as respondents filed the appeals. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.2.2014 allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-tenant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Authority had erred in upsetting the judgment passed Singh Gurpreet 2014.04.02 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2286 of 2014 (O&M) -2- by the Rent Controller without considering the reasons given by the Rent Controller. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Nicholas V. Menezes versus Joseph M. Menezes and others, 2009(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.)
682. In the present case, respondents had sought ejectment of the petitioner on the grounds of personal necessity and non- payment of rent. The Rent Controller had held that petitioner was in arrears of rent and granted two months time to the petitioner to make the payment of arrears of rent. However, so far as the ejectment petition on the ground of personal necessity is concerned, the same was dismissed. The Rent Controller while dismissing the ejectment petition on the ground of personal necessity held that, although, respondent No. 1 had become owner of the premises in question but she had failed to establish any necessity to shift from Delhi to Chandigarh. The learned Appellate Authority while allowing the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity has observed as under:-
"After the death of Mrs. Narrottame Walia, by virtue of Will dated 17.2.1989 of Lt. Col. H.R.Walia, Mrs. Chandrika Sondhi has become absolute owner of the out house i.e. demised premises and being owner of the demised premises she has become the landlady qua the respondent in respect of those premises and entitled to seek eviction of the respondent on the ground of her bonafide personal necessity. It is well settled that tenant has no right to dictate terms to the landlord. It is also well settled that a landlord has a right to live comfortably in Singh Gurpreet 2014.04.02 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2286 of 2014 (O&M) -3- the house owned by him or her. The respondent has no right to say that petitioner Mrs. Chandrika Sondhi should not shift from Delhi to Chandigarh as she is residing in Delhi for the last many years. It may be so, if the petitioner claims that she wants to shift to Chandigarh, there is no ground to doubt her intentions. Accordingly, it is held that Mrs. Chandrika Sondhi has a bonafide personal necessity to occupy the demised premises for her residence and to live there with her family members. The findings of learned Rent Controller on issue No. 2 are accordingly set aside and said issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents."
The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Authority had failed to deal with the reasons given by the Rent Controller while upsetting the judgment of the Rent Controller, is without any basis. The learned Appellate Authority has categorically held that the petitioner could not question the need of the landlady to shift from Delhi to Chandigarh. It is for the landlady to decide as to whether she wants to continue residing at Delhi or wants to shift to Chandigarh. It is the settled proposition of law that the landlord is the best judge qua his needs and the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord. In these circumstance, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner. Rather, in the present case, the Appellate Authority has given good reasons for allowing the ejectment petition. The landlady wanted to shift from Delhi to Chandigarh and wanted to reside in the premises in question. There was no occasion to doubt the said Singh Gurpreet 2014.04.02 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2286 of 2014 (O&M) -4- need put-forth by the landlady. Moreover, as per Section 13 of the Act, protection has been given to the tenant that in case the landlord fails to occupy the premises in question within the stipulated period or rents out the same to another tenant, then evicted tenant can apply for restoration of possession to the Rent Controller.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE March 28, 2014 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2014.04.02 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh