Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjiv Kumar vs Gurdarshan Singh on 18 December, 2014
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
CR-7470-2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.7470 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: December 18, 2014.
Sanjiv Kumar
......PETITIONER(s).
VERSUS
Gurdarshan Singh
....RESPONDENT(s).
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner (s).
Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate
for the respondent.
*******
SURINDER GUPTA, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that arrears of rent/mesne profits as per order dated 27.11.2014 has not been paid by the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner seeks the decision of this revision petition on merits and does not want to withdraw the same.
On 27.11.2014, following order was passed in this revision petition:-
"After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not intend to press this petition on merits and seeks reasonable time to vacate the premises and to find alternate accommodation.SACHIN MEHTA 2014.12.24 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR-7470-2014 -2-
On this limited ground, notice of motion for 18.12.2014.
Dasti as well.
Till then, the execution of the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller, if not already executed, shall remain stayed subject to the conditions that petitioner will pay/deposit the entire arrears of rent/mesne profits upto 30th November, 2014 within two weeks and pay the rent/mesne profits for the next month on or before 7th day of December, 2014."
As the revision petitioner wants the decision of the revision petition on merits, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book with their assistance.
Respondent-landlord Gurdarshan Singh filed petition under Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises situated near Rabji Di Kothi, Nai Abadi, Khanna for his personal bonafide necessity.
The case of the respondent-landlord is that he is Non- Resident Indian and settled in Bahrain for the last many years. He has now decided to return to India for settling here permanently. He has narrated his personal bonafide necessity in para 5 (i) of the petition as follows:-
"That the petitioner requires the shop in dispute bonafide and urgently for his personal requirement because the petitioner has decided to shift to Khanna and to start his business in the shops shown as blue and marked by the points 'X' and 'Y' in the site plan attached to the petition by converting these shops into one big shop by removing CR-7470-2014 -3- the intervening wall of these shops and by remodeling the same. The shop in dispute in the present case is not sufficiently big. Therefore, the petitioner has decided to convert the above said two shops into one big shop because in modern times there is market of big shops only. The petitioner is filing a separate ejectment petition against the tenant of the adjoining shop marked by the point 'X' in the site plan attached to the petition on the same ground of personal necessity in view of the facts mentioned above. The petitioner has decided to reside in the residential house situated on the eastern side of the above said shops after shifting to India. The petitioner is separately filing the ejectment petition under section 13-B of the Rent Act against the tenant of the residential portion whose name is Ajit Singh. The petitioner has chosen the shop in dispute and the adjoining shop for carrying on his business in view of the fact that the same are most suitable for the business of the petitioner. The petitioner is Non Resident Indian and has decided to shift from Bahrain to India as per details given above."
Upon notice, the revision petitioner who was tenant in the demised premises sought leave to contest the petition on the ground that respondent-landlord is not a Non-Resident Indian and this petition under Section 13-B of the Act is not maintainable. The property in question is not commercial and is very small in size of 5' X 17' and can not be utilized for commercial purposes. He denied that the shop in question is required by the respondent for his personal bonafide necessity.
The respondent-landlord contested the application of the revision petitioner and vide order dated 28.08.2014, Rent Controller, CR-7470-2014 -4- Khanna declined the application of the revision petitioner and ordered his ejectment from the demised premises.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that the petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 13-B of the Act, is a sheer misuse of process of law. He has supported his above contention with following submissions:-
(i) The respondent after filing the petition has gone abroad after giving a power of attorney to his wife;
(ii) The wife of respondent has also joined him at Bahrain and she has further executed power of attorney in favour of her brother Shri Jaspal Singh.
This shows that the petitioner is no more interested to live in India or to start any business here. His purpose of getting the shop vacated is either to sell it or again let it out on higher rent. He further argues that the apprehension of revision petitioner is based on the recital in the power of attorney executed by Gurdeep Kaur wife of respondent, whereby she has authorized her attorney to let out the premises.
Learned counsel for the respondent while refuting the arguments of learned counsel for the revision petitioner, has argued that respondent-landlord intends to start his business in the shops owned by him including the shop in question after removing the intervening wall and converting them into a big showroom. He is presently settled in Bahrain and will start his business on getting this shop vacated. Neither it is required nor expected that a landlord will sit idle till the petition filed by him seeking ejectment of the revision petitioner is finally decided and CR-7470-2014 -5- the possession is delivered to him. If the wife of respondent has joined him at Bahrain, this in no manner, indicates that respondent-landlord has no intention to return to India. The arguments of learned counsel for the revision petitioner have no basis and cannot be accepted. The special power of attorney executed by Gurdeep Kaur on 15.10.2012 in favour of her brother do not authorize the attorney to let out the demised shop. In support of his contention, he has placed on record copy of special power of attorney.
The respondent is admittedly a Non Resident Indian, presently, living in Bahrain. He wants to return and settle at Khanna. For his residential requirements, he had filed an ejectment petition against Ajit Singh, who is a tenant in his house at Khanna (Rent Application No.244 of 21.05.2012) in which the ejectment order has been passed by the Rent Controller on 28.08.2014. Tenant Ajit Singh filed revision against the order of ejectment (Civil Revision No.6817 of 2014) which was taken up along with this revision petition. The tenant in that revision petition has sought permission to withdraw that petition. This shows that the respondent is serious in returning and starting his business in India. He is making arrangement for his residence as well as for his business. The mere fact that he had gone abroad and his wife had also joined him at Bahrain, cannot be taken as an indicator of intention of respondent not to return and doubt his bonafide and personal requirement of the demised premises. The landlord is not expected to sit idle till he gets possession of the tenanted premises or his petition is finally decided. His efforts for starting business will start only after getting the demised shop vacated. CR-7470-2014 -6- The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has again gone to Bahrain with an intention not to return and settle in India, is without any substance and is rejected. The copy of special power of attorney executed by wife of respondent in favour of her brother Jaspal to pursue this case of respondent, do not authorized him to let out the demised shop. As such, the argument of learned counsel for the respondent in this regard is also without any substance.
On perusal of the paper book and record of the Courts below, I do not find any factual or legal infirmity in the ejectment order passed by the Courts below, calling for any interference.
This appeal has no merits. Dismissed.
( SURINDER GUPTA ) December 18, 2014. JUDGE Sachin M.