Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 15.10.2011 of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby his eviction has been ordered from the demised premises on the ground of personal bonafide need of the respondent-landlady; and further judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 30.03.2013 whereby his appeal against the aforesaid order of eviction has been dismissed.

Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order of eviction, the petitioner-tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 30.03.2013. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment read thus:

"13. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, from the perusal of the pleadings set up by the landlady coupled with the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller, it is not in dispute that the tenanted were let out to the appellant/tenant in the year 1995. The case of bonafide requirements as pleaded by the respondent/landlady was that she and her grandson and wife of her grandson were interested to set up their Food related business and as the landlady has decided to settle her grandson in the tenanted premises, landlady filed the eviction petition through her grandson on the ground of bonafide requirement. The appellant/tenant contested the eviction proceedings by categorically denying that the respondent/landlady had not any bonafide requirement for use and occupation for her grandson for starting a Food related business in the tenanted premises. The learned Rent Controller had allowed the application for eviction inter-alia holding that the respondent/landlady has successfully proved her bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises. The foremost nub and essence of arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/tenant is that the bonafide need of the respondent/landlady was not proved as she herself has not entered into the witness box. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon numbers of judicial verdicts. In the light of the arguments raised, it is to be seen, in the instant case, whether in a suit for eviction preferred by landlady on the ground of bonafide need, is necessary for her to enter the witness box and if she has not entered into the witness box, but she tried to prove the case by examining her attorney holder (her real grandson in the present case), whether such evidence is sufficient and is legally acceptable to prove the bonafide need, even if it is treated that the attorney holder has not deposed as an agent of the landlady but as a witness of the landlady. True, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Man Kaur (dead) by LR's Vs. Hartar Singh Sangha (Supra) has held that the power of attorney holder can not depose in place and instead of principle, it is required to be seen as to whether only on this ground, in the instant case, the landlady can be non- suited or the evidence adduced by the attorney holder, who is none else the real grandson of the landlady, who will be treated as a witness of the landlady, rather an agent of the landlady, can be accepted. This Court is of the opinion that even Mandeep Singh, attorney holder, is not treated as an agent of landlady, he still remains a witness of the landlady and being her real grandson having entered the witness box to support the landlady plea of bonafide need, thus, the ground for eviction under the bonafide need is required to be examined on the basis of evidence available on the record. AW-1 Mandeep Singh has deposed that her grandmother bonafidely requires the tenanted premises for her own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of the attorney holder. He also deposed that neither the landlady nor he or his wife has commercial place for their own to start their business and as such, they required the tenanted premises for their use and occupation. Undisputedly, grandson of the landlady before filing the petition for eviction was doing job at Bangalore, however it is also not in dispute that the parents of the grandson of the landlady are settled at Ludhiana. In the instant petition, the landlady deposed through her attorney that she and her other family members has every intention to start their own business in the tenanted premises. It is well settled that when the landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. In order to resist the claim of the landlady, the appellant/tenant came with a plea that the landlady nowhere pleaded that her grandson and his wife were residing as family members with her or were dependent upon landlady. It is true that it is the case of the landlady that her grandson alongwith his wife was doing job at Bangalore before filing the petition. But, it is also true that there is no evidence brought on record by the appellant/tenant that the landlady had any other accommodation or has vacated similar building after the commencement of the Act in the same area. Thus, the question is only as to whether the landlady need is bonafide or not. As stated above, the appellant/tenant has raised the issue that the grandson is not a family member of a landlady as he and his family is not dependent upon the landlady and the setting up of an independent business by the grandson would not be covered by S.13(3)(a)(ii) as in such a case it cannot be said that the landlady requires the rented shop for her own use. In the alternative, it was pleaded by the appellant-tenant that even if for the argument's sake it may be accepted that the need of a grandson, would be the requirement of the landlady herself, in the instant case, there being neither any pleading nor any evidence to substantiate that the grandson was dependent and living jointly with the landlady, the setting up of business by the grandson cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be taken as the requirement of landlady. In nutshell, the plea of the appellant is that a grand son cannot be said to be a member of the family of the grand mother-landlady, particularly when it is not the averment that the grand son is financially dependent upon the landlady. At first blush the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant-tenant appear very attractive but for the cogent reasons, this Court has not been able to persuade itself to find any force in the plea raised. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.4480 of 2006, decided on May 11, 2010, (Roop Chand vs. Karneesh Kumar) has held as follows:

In the light of the arguments raised, it is to be seen in the instant case whether in an eviction petition preferred by the landlady on the ground of bonafide need, it was necessary for her to enter into the witness box and if she has not entered into the witness box but has tried to prove the case by examining her attorney-holder (her real grand-son in the instant case), whether such evidence is sufficient and legally acceptable to prove the bonafide need and whether the attorney-holder was competent to appear on behalf of the landlady to prove her case of bonafide need of the premises in dispute.

From a perusal of the aforesaid principles, as culled out by Hon'ble the Apex Court, it is clearly made out that where landlord seeks eviction of his tenant on the ground of his bonafide need, normally the landlord himself has to give evidence and not an attorney-holder. However, there is an exception to the aforesaid requirement, i.e. where the affairs of a party are completely managed, transacted and looked after by an attorney (who may happen to be a close family member), it is possible to accept the evidence of such attorney even with reference to bonafide need of the landlord/landlady, and if such attorney-holder is a husband/wife exclusively managing the affairs of his/her spouse, a son/daughter exclusively managing the affairs of an old and infirm parent, a father/mother exclusively managing the affairs of a son/daughter living abroad.