Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohd. Rafiq vs Surinder Kumar Jain And Another on 11 February, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Civil Revision No. 1045 of 2014 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 1045 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.2.2014.
Mohd. Rafiq .......Petitioner
Versus
Surinder Kumar Jain and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Hema Kakkar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
SABINA, J.
Respondents had filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('Act' for short) seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity and arrears of rent.
Case of the landlord, in brief, was that the premises in question had been rented out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of ` 710/- vide rent note dated 4.10.1985. Landlord Sant Ram (since deceased) pleaded that he had two sons who were practicing lawyers in Income Tax and Sale Tax whereas he himself was dealing in Income Tax and Sale Tax cases at Malerkotla. He wanted to set up his office and library in the demised premises. It was also pleaded that petitioner was in arrears of rent since 4.4.1998.
Petitioner, in his reply, admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as well as execution of the rent note. The other contentions in the ejectment petition, were Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.18 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1045 of 2014 -2- denied.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:-
1. Whether the respondent is liable for ejectment from the premises in dispute for personal necessity of petitioner?
OPP
2. Whether the application is not properly verified ? If so, its effect ? OPR
3. Whether the application is malafide and is not maintainable in the present form ? OPR
4. Relief.
Rent Controller vide order dated 28.4.2011, dismissed the ejectment petition. Aggrieved against the said order, respondents preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 27.11.2013 on the ground of personal necessity. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-tenant.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the ejectment petition was liable to be dismissed as the landlord was not in possession of the part of the premises in question. Landlord had concealed material facts from the Court while filing the ejectment petition.
Case of the landlord was that he required the premises in question for his own personal use and occupation. The case of the landlord was that he wanted to establish his office and library and provide computer services to his clients as he was dealing in cases under Income Tax and Sale Tax Act along with his sons. It is settled proposition of law that the landlord is the best judge qua his Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.18 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1045 of 2014 -3- needs. Although, the landlord was running his office in his residence, that does not debar the landlord from also opening his office in the demised premises. It appears that initially landlord alone was the practicing lawyer and then his sons also joined as lawyers. Admittedly, the need of the landlord increased and he wanted to set-up his office in the demised premises. There is no occasion to doubt the need of the landlord. The fact that landlord was also running his office in the residential premises cannot be treated as concealment of facts.
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. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Appellate Authority had rightly allowed the ejectment petition filed by the landlord.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE February 11, 2014 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.18 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh