Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jang Bahadur Singh Bawa vs Subhash Chander on 19 January, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1995)110PLR311
Author: H.S. Bedi
Bench: H.S. Bedi
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, dated 21st January, 1992 dismissing the application of the specified landlord-petitioner filed under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the demised premises which is one room forming part of House No. 116, situated at Mohalla Haryana Dass Pura, Jalandhar. The respondent Subhash Chander was admittedly inducted as a tenant in the room in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- per month way back in the Excise & Taxation Department, Punjab. The petitioner retired on 31st March, 1990 and sought eviction of the respondent on the ground that he needed the demised premises for his personal use and occupation as the accommodation already with him in House No. 116, Harnam Dass Pura, Jalandhar was insufficient to meet the needs of the family. It was further averred that the room in question had been let out for residential purposes but after taking the same on rent the respondent had started using it for running a Karyana shop and that, too, without permission of the Rent Controller. On receipt of the notice of the application the respondent put in appearance and was granted leave to contest the same in the written statement filed thereafter he controverted the allegations in the application and denied that the petitioner was a specified landlord or that the premises had been let out for a commercial purpose i.e. for running a shop ever since the inception of the tenancy it could not be got vacated under the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act.
2. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the tender made by the respondent is invalid? OPA.
2. Whether the applicant requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation? OPA
3. Whether the applicant is a specified landlord? OPA.
4. Whether the applicant does not fulfil conditions of Section 13-A of the Act? If so, to what effect? OPR.
5. Whether the disputed property is commercial? It's to what effect? OPR.
6. Relief?
3. On issues 3 and 4 the Rent Controller gave a finding that the applicant was a specified landlord but on the material issues 2 and 5 recorded that as the demised premises had been let out for a commercial purpose right from the beginning the same could not (be) got vacated by recourse to the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act. The Rent Controller also held that even assuming that the change of user had been made from residential to commercial notwithstanding the judgment of this Court in Hari Miltal v. B.M. Sikka, (1986-1) 89 P.L.R. 1 (F.B.), the applicant was not liable to succeed as the premises had been let out for commercial purposes from the beginning and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Brat v. Dr. Jagjit Mehta,' 1990(2) Rent Control Journal 431 had held that where there was no sanctioned scheme existing whereby an embargo had been placed on the conversion of a residential into non-residential user, the ratio of Hari Mittal's case (supra) which pertained to the planned city of Chandigarh could not be applied and the change of user could be effected without the sanction of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act. It was further held that as no scheme of the Improvement Trust or the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar had been framed with regard to Mohalla Harnam Dass Pura, Jalandhar the change of user was permitted and as such the benefit of Hari Mittal's case (supra) could not be given to the applicant. Having held as such the application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition on behalf of the landlord.
4. Mr. Jasbir Singh, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner has raised primarily one argument before me. He has urged that the finding of the Rent Controller that the building in question had been let out for a commercial purpose from the very beginning was wrong in as much as there was no evidence on the record in this regard. He has also urged that the learned Rent Controller was wrong in giving a finding that the petitioner had admitted in the course of his pleading that the room in question had been let out for commercial purpose as it was based on a misreading of the application. Mr. S.K. Pruthi, learned counsel for the respondent has, however, supported the findings of the Rent Controller.
5. After going through the documents as also the other evidence on record I find that the present revision petition deserves to succeed. The Rent Controller was deeply influenced by the fact that in the course of his application, the revision petitioners had admitted that the building in question had been let out for a commercial purpose at the very inception of the tenancy in the year 1976-77,1 have gone through the application with the help of the learned counsel and find that in the application the revision petitioner had specifically stated that the room, had been let out for residential purpose and that after letting out of the same, the respondent had changed its user without permission of the petitioner or the Rent Controller, therefore, that there was any admission on the part of the petitioner is, therefore, to my mind wholly misconceived. Mr. Jasbir Singh, counsel for the petitioner, has also brought to my notice exhibits R.4, R.5 R.6 which pertained to the years 1978-79, 1977-78 and 1979-80 produced by the respondent's Shri O.P. Suri RW-1 with regard to the licence fee to be paid to the Municipal Corporation to contend the reliance of the Rent Controller on these receipts was wholly wrong as they pertained to the premises No. 256, Harnam Dass Pura which admittedly belong to the father of the respondent. A casual look at the aforesaid exhibits clearly indicates that licence fee paid pertain to the winning of the Karyana shop at the address of 256, Harnam Dass Pura. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, relied upon Exhibits R.I and R.2 which are extracts from the record of the Inspector of Shops & Commercial Establishments. Undoubtedly these two documents do indicate that a shop was being run in the premises No. 116, but it appears that the reference to shop No. 116 made therein is out of context and whereas the number ought to have been written before the description of the locality, it has intact been written after the completion of the entire address, it has been argued by Mr. Jasbir Singh, with some plausibility that shop No. 116 was added at a later stage. Ex.R-2 undoubtedly, refers to the premises No. 116, Harnam Dass Pura, Jalandhar, but it pertains to the year 1981-82. This document, however, also does not come to the rescue of the respondent for the simple reason that it is the case of the petitioner himself that the premises in question were being used as a shop after the inception of the tenancy. Annexure R.3 which is a receipt issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board also does not help the case of the respondent as it has been issued in the name of petitioner Jang Bahadur and does not refer to any specific address. Mr. Pruthi has also referred to the copy of a plaint in a suit filed by the respondent and the written statement filed by the petition thereof in which it had been admitted that the respondent was a tenant in shop No. 1.16. No doubt such admission does exist in the written statement filed by the petitioner but once again no help can be taken by the respondent on account of this admission as it pertain to the year 1990 on which date admittedly the respondent was running a karyana shop in the demised premises.
6. Mr. Jasbir Singh had also argued that even assuming for a moment that the room in question had been let out for commercial activity that could not be done in view of the embargo placed by this Court in Hari Mittal's case (supra). He has, how- ever, not persevered with this argument in view of the fact that this judgment has been distinguished by the Supreme Court in Dev Brat Sharma's case (supra).
7. The Rent Controller has recorded a finding that the petitioner had four daughters, out of whom three were married and one was studying in B.A., and one son, who was studying in B.A., and one son, who was married and had got two children whereas the accommodation with him was of two rooms on the ground floor, one drawing room, latrine, bath, kitchen, store, and one room on the first floor. To my mind this accommodation is wholly insufficient for the needs of the landlord and his family.
8. The present petition is accordingly allowed, the order of the Rent Controller dated 21st January, 1992 is set-aside and the eviction of the respondent from the premises in question is ordered. It is, however, directed that in case the respondent- tenant deposit the arrears of rent upto date and also the advance rent for the next three months before the Rent Controller and also files an undertaking within four weeks before him that he would vacate the premises on the expiry of the three months, the possession of the respondent would not be disturbed for a period of three months.