Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbhajan Singh vs Surjit Singh on 26 March, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Civil Revision No. 2257 of 2014 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 2257 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.3.2014.
Gurbhajan Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
Surjit Singh .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. S.S.Deol, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
SABINA, J.
Respondent had filed the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('Act' for short) seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question.
Case of the respondent, as per the ejectment petition, in brief, was that he was owner/landlord of the premises in question. The premises in question had been rented out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of ` 400/- besides house tax at the rate of 15% per annum. Rent note was executed between the parties on 11.2.1984. However, the petitioner had failed to pay rent with effect from 10.3.2006. Petitioner had changed the user of the shop in question. The premises in question had been rented out to the petitioner for running the business of repair and sale of watches whereas he had opened up a P.C.O and had started the business of repair of mobile phones without the consent of the landlord. It was further prayed that the premises in question was required by the landlord to Singh Gurpreet 2014.03.28 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2257 of 2014 (O&M) -2- enable his unemployed son Amritpal Singh to run his business in the premises in question.
Petitioner, in his written statement, admitted the factum of tenancy between the parties and the execution of the rent note in question. However, the other contentions in the ejectment petition, were denied.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:-
1. Whether respondent is in arrears of rent ? OPA
2. Whether respondent has changed the user of the tenancy premises ? OPA
3. Whether tenancy premises is bonafidely required to petitioner and his son ? OPA
4. Whether present petition is not maintainable ? OPR
5. Relief.
Rent Controller vide order dated 25.4.2013 allowed the ejectment petition on the grounds of change of user and personal necessity. Aggrieved against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 25.1.2014. party allowed the appeal. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-tenant.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
In the present case, case of the landlord was that he required the premises in question for his own use and occupation as his unemployed son Amritpal Singh was to start his business in the same. Landlord himself appeared in the witness box and deposed as per the contents of the ejectment petition. The case of Singh Gurpreet 2014.03.28 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2257 of 2014 (O&M) -3- the landlord was that his son Amritpal Singh was assisting him in the business of electrical goods and they wanted to expand their business. Admittedly, the shop in which the landlord is already running the business and the demised premises, are the adjoining shops. The case of the landlord is that by removing the common wall, he wanted to expand his business. There is no occasion to doubt the need put-forth by the landlord. It is the settled proposition of law that the landlord is the best judge qua his needs. It has also transpired during the course of arguments that the other shops owned by the landlord are already in possession of the tenants. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly held that the landlord had been successful in establishing the ground of personal necessity.
So far as the ground of change of user is concerned, the execution of the rent note, executed between the parties, is not in dispute. As per the rent note, it was agreed between the parties that the tenant shall not change the business for which it had been taken on rent without written consent of the landlord. Petitioner had initially taken the shop in question on rent and started running the business of sale and repair of watches. However, the petitioner had then changed the user of the shop in question by running a P.C.O and the business of mobile phones under the name of M/s Guru Mobiles. It has also been noticed by the Appellate Authority that the petitioner had admitted in his cross-examination that he had not sought permission from the landlord and presently he was running a P.C.O in the premises in question and was also carrying the business of mobile phones in the premises in question whereas he was running the business of sale and repair of watches.
Singh Gurpreet In these circumstances, the Courts 2014.03.28 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2257 of 2014 (O&M) -4- below rightly held that the petitioner had changed the user of the premises in question.
Thus, the petitioner was liable to be ejected as he had changed the user of the premises in question and the landlord required the same for his own personal use and occupation. 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 26, 2014 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2014.03.28 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh