Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashwani Kumar vs Balbir Kaur Passi And Others on 16 August, 2010
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
CR No. 5026 of 2010 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.
CR No. 5026 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 16.08.2010
Ashwani Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
Balbir Kaur Passi and others.
....Respondents.
Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see
judgement ?
2. To be referred to reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
...
Alok Singh, J.
Present revision is preferred by the landlord - petitioner under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 1949 Act), assailing eviction orders dated 23.5.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Phillaur, as well as order dated 25.5.2010 passed by passed by the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, whereby both the Courts below found bonafide and genuine need of the landlord and directed eviction of the tenant from the demise premises i.e. shop.
Brief facts of the present case are that originally Rajinder Passi, the landlord filed eviction petition against the tenant on the ground that the CR No. 5026 of 2010 2 tenant - respondent is not a good paymaster and is in arrears of rent; respondent has made material alteration in the demise premises; demise premises is unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the demise premises is required by the landlord for his own use and occupation. The landlord has alleged in the eviction petition that he was posted in Budhwar District Hoshiarpur as Social Studies Teacher and he retired after attaining the age of superannuation and now his entire family is surviving on the small pension of Rs.1694/- per month. The landlord wants to reside with his family in his ancestral and parental house. It is further averred that the landlord required the demise premises most urgently for the use and occupation by his family. He wants to renovate the entire building which is very old one and without getting the shop vacated, renovation/reconstruction is not possible. During the pendency of the case before the Rent Controller, the original landlord died, however, wife of the original landlord set up the case that she is only bread earner of the family and is a qualified doctor in electro Homeopathic system of medicines. She requires the demise premises to earn livelihood for her family by opening her clinic on the ground floor and the first floor for the self occupation after its due reconstruction. It is further alleged by the landlord that she has no other accommodation in the city of Phillaur either to reside or to earn livelihood.
Tenant filed written statement and stated that initially the building was let out by the father of original landlord and after the death of his father, respondents are occupying the shop and respondent No.1 is running his clinic in the demise shop and paying the enhanced rent @ Rs.60/- per month. It is further averred that the landlord has no need to CR No. 5026 of 2010 3 occupy the demise shop and the need set up by the landlord is not genuine and bonafide and the wife of the landlord is residing in Uttarakhand with her daughter and has no absolutely need to shift to the city of Phillaur and reside in the property in dispute.
The Rent Controller did not find favour with the landlord on the question of arrears of rent and the Rent Controller further found that there was no material alteration in the demise shop and it was further found that the landlord could not prove that the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Rent Controller found favour with the landlord on the ground that the landlord requires the shop in question for her personal use and occupation. It is accepted by the Rent Controller that the widow of the original landlord is a qualified doctor in electro Homeopathic system of medicines and she has no source of earning livelihood except meager pension of Rs.1694/- per month besides Rs.60/- as rent of the demise shop and she needs the entire building to reside and to start her practicing in homoeopathic medicines. Ultimately, the Rent Controller vide impugned judgement dated 23.5.2009 allowed the eviction petition filed by the landlord.
Feeling aggrieved, tenant has filed appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide judgement dated 25.5.2010 dismissed the appeal and recorded concurrent finding of fact that the landlord requires the demise shop for her personal use and occupation and she has every right to shift to the city of Phillaur and she would be residing in the building after getting it renovated/reconstructed and would start practice in electro Homeopathic medicines and she would start living in the entire building. Ultimately, the appeal came to be dismissed vide judgement CR No. 5026 of 2010 4 dated 25.5.2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioner - tenant vehemently argued that after the death of the original landlord, his widow is residing with her daughter in Uttarakhand and she has absolutely no need to shift to the city of Phillaur. It is further argued that the tenant is doing medical practice in the shop in question after the death of the father of the original landlord and it would cause hardship for the tenant to be evicted.
There is concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below that the original landlord was posted in Budhwar, District Hoshiarpur as a Social Studies teacher in DAV Middle School and he retired from service on 24.3.1990 and the original landlord has expired during the pendency of the case before the Rent Controller and now his wife Balbir Kaur Passi wants to shift to Phillaur to reside with her unmarried daughter Anita alongwith one adopted son aged 10-11 years. It is further observed by the Courts below that it would be difficult for the landlord to survive on the meagre pension of her husband of Rs.1694/- and her need to shift to Phillaur and to start practice in electro Homeopathic medicines in one of the portions of the building in question is genuine and bonafide and she would require another portion of the building for her residence with her family members.
This Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is not supposed to re-assess the evidence. Having perused entire record, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgements. Tenant cannot dictate the landlord that the landlord should reside with her daughter in Uttarakhand and she has no right to shift to Phillaur. If the landlord wishes to shift to her native village and start practice in electro homoeopathic medicine because it is not possible for her CR No. 5026 of 2010 5 and her family members to survive on meagre pension of Rs.1694/-, then need of the landlord seems to be genuine and bonafide.
No other point is raised. Petition is dismissed. However, two months' time is granted to the tenant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the property in question to the landlord.
( Alok Singh ) Judge 16.08.2010 sk.