Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sant Ram And Anr. vs Romesh Chander on 6 January, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1993)104PLR94
JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This order of mine will dispose of Civil Revisions No. 2699, 2700, 2701 and 2702 of 1987. All these petitions have been preferred by the landlords against three different tenants in occupation of a shop each. The ejectment of the tenants was sought by the landlords on the ground that they bona fide required the same for their own use and occupation. The stand taken by the tenants was that the premises in dispute are not residential as these were let out as shops. The learned Rent Controller after finding that the premises in question were let cut as shops, dismissed the ejectment applications. In appeal, the landlords made applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leading additional evidence. By way of additional evidence, they wanted to show that the premises in dispute were residential. The said applications were dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the appeals were also dismissed.
2. When these civil revisions came up for final hearing before J. V. Gupta, J. (as his lordship then was), counsel for the landlords pressed the applications for additional evidence. Their applications were allowed and a report was called for from the learned Rent Controller, after taking the evidence and allowing the tenants to lead evidence in rebuttal. Parties led evidence. The Rent Controller submitted his report to the Appellate Authority who after hearing counsel for the parties, affirmed the report of the Rent Controller. The report of the Rent Controller, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, clearly indicates that the petitioners have failed to prove that there was any sanctioned Scheme for Model Town in Jalandhar City. No objections whatsoever were filed against the report.
3. Mr. M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners states that no objections were necessary to be filed. He further has made a reference to a plan which was produced before the Rent Controller by way of additional evidence. From the plan, he wanted me to infer that there is a sanctioned scheme. He also referred to Section 273 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act to contend that the plot on which shops are there, was shown only to be residential and therefore, user could not be changed without the consent of the Commissioner. I am afraid to accept this contention. AW-1 Tikka Harbans Singh, who proved this plan, has said in his cross-examination that he is not aware if there is any scheme for Model Town. He also was not aware if there was any file pertaining to Model Town area and therefore, he could not say that there was any file pertaining to sanctioned scheme.
4. I am satisfied with the report of the learned Rent Controller to which no objections were filed. In order to further satisfy myself, I asked counsel for the tenants to produce photographs of the building as well as of the adjoining buildings. He has produced certain photographs which makes it abundantly clear that the entire area where the building is situated is surrounded by shops on both sides. With regard to the authenticity of the photographs, Mr. Suri stated that he himself went to the spot and got these photographs taken in his presence. In this view of the matter, it is held that the shops in dispute are independent units and were let out for the purpose of carrying on the business and therefore, the landlords are not entitled to seek an order of ejectment as they have failed to prove on record any sanctioned scheme under the Punjab Municipal Act or Punjab Town Improvement Act. They have further failed to prove that the building on which the shops in dispute form part, cannot be used for any other purpose except, residential. Such like matter was considered by me in the case of Ajaib Singh v. Sukhdev Singh, (1992-2) 102 P.L.R. 73 in which I took this very view Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any distinguishable feature which would persuade me to take a contrary view from the one I took in the aforesaid judgment.
5. In view of the foregoing discussion. Civil Revisions No. 2699 to 2702 of 1987 are dismissed with no order as to costs.