C.R.No.6201 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6201 of 2008 Date of decision : 9.12.2008 Pawan Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus Maman Kumar and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER ..... Present : Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vivek Arora, Advocate for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J.(Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.9.2008 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Muktsar by which the appeal of the respondents/landlords arising out of the proceedings initiated pursuant to the provisions of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act was accepted. The respondents preferred the eviction petition on the following grounds :- a) That the respondents are in arrears of rent from 1.1.1980 till date along with interest on the amount of arrears of rent and they are also liable to pay house tax @ 15% per annum for the period. b) That the petitioners require the demised shop for their own use and occupation as the petitioners who are unemployed C.R.No.6201 of 2008 -2- and not doing any work, intend to start their own business of shoe making including making and selling of Jutties in the demised premises. Petitioner No.3 is Roshan Lal who was previously Central Govt. employee serving as J.S.T.(Junior Supervisor Traffic) in the Department of Telecommunication (Telephone) retired from service on 31.3.1995. Petitioner No.1 Maman Kumar was previously employed as Upper Division Clerk in Punjab State Electricity Board, Muktsar and he has retired on 30.9.02 after completing his age of 58 years and petitioner No.2 Puran Chand is also unemployed and not doing any work at present and they intend to start the business of shoes and jutties making and selling them from the demised shop which is situated in Jutti Bazar to support their families. They already know this profession of shoe making specially Jutti making as they belong to Chamar caste family and this is their ancestral profession and their father was also expert in this profession. c) The petitioners are not occupying any shop in the urban area concerned for the purpose of their business either on rent or in any capacity. d) The petitioners have not vacated any such building or rental land or building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this act in the Urban Area concerned.” The petitioners refuted the contentions of the respondents. After completion of the pleadings, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :- C.R.No.6201 of 2008 -3- 1. Whether respondents are in arrears of rent from 1.1.1980 and are liable to pay house tax? OPP 2. Whether applicants required the demised shop for their personal use ? OPA 3. Whether application is mala fide? OPR 4. Whether applicants have no cause of action ?OPR 5. Whether applicants are entitled for eviction of the respondents from the suit shop? OPA 6. Relief. After appraisal of the evidence led by the parties the eviction petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, but in appeal the learned Appellate Authority upset the order of the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 11.9.2008 which has now been impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised a solitary contention that out of the three respondents two were employed out of whom one retired in 1995 and the other in 2002 and after retirement they could not be expected to take up the job of shoe and Jutti making and selling the same in the shop in dispute as alleged by them. Further, it was contended that it has been pleaded in the petition that the shop is required for the purpose that two of the sons of one of the petitioners wish to set up their aforesaid business in the shop and that none of these two persons testified before the courts below in this regard. That apart, it was contended that AW1 Charanjit Lal with whom the sons of one the petitioners are said to be employed has not filed any returns to that effect. He has neither informed the factory C.R.No.6201 of 2008 -4- inspector regarding hiring of the shop nor informed any of the authorities regarding the employment of two sons of respondent Maman Kumar. The respondents are on caveat, who have contended that the bona fide need and personal necessity stands established on record. He has also stated that from the year 2005 not a single penny has been paid as rent. The factum of non-payment of rent has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed. No benefit can be granted to a tenant who does not pay the rent. One of the grounds taken up by the respondents/landlords was that the rent was not being paid since 2005. It was only under the process of the court that the rent was paid and even after making the statement that the petitioners will pay the subsequent rent, the same was not paid. Rent forms an inherent part of the terms of the tenancy and is a bedrock of the relationship of a landlord and tenant. Failure to pay the rent strikes at the very root of the concept of tenancy and negates the relationship of a landlord and tenant. A tenant who does not pay the rent loses all rights to the enjoyment of the property. This itself is a good ground for eviction of the petitioners. That apart, in so far as the personal necessity of the landlords is concerned, there is ample evidence on record to suggest that the two of the respondents after retiring from government job C.R.No.6201 of 2008 -5- along with their brother and his sons want to set up the business of shoe and jutti making and selling the same in the demised shop. It is also in evidence that they belong to the caste which is engaged in the business of shoe and Jutti making. The shop is also situated in Jutti Bazar, Muktsar where other shops of similar nature are situated. It is also established that the respondents have no other shop where they can run the business nor they have vacated any other shop. The bona fide need also is thus established. The Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 1998 (2) RCR 533 has observed as follows :- “14. The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and 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 bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms of the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could C.R.No.6201 of 2008 -6- have adjusted himself.” In Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222 the following was the observation of the Supreme Court :- “....the requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradiction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant refers to a state of mind prevailing with the landlord. The only way of peeping into the mind of the landlord is an exercise undertaken by the judge of facts by placing himself in the armchair of the landlord and then posing a question to himself – Whether in the given facts, substantiated by the landlord, the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest ? If the answer be in positive, the need is bona fide....” In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for some time to vacate the demised premises. In this view of the matter, it is directed that the petitioners shall pay the entire arrears of rent from 2005 till date and also continue to pay the same for the period they occupy the shop pursuant to this order and also undertake to vacate the premises and hand over the physical vacant possession thereof to the respondents on or before 30.6.2009. It is made clear that any default on the part of the petitioners shall result in the automatic vacation of the benefit of this order granted to them. An undertaking to the aforesaid effect has been furnished C.R.No.6201 of 2008 -7- separately before this Court which is taken on record and is accepted leaving the petitioners bound by the terms thereof. 9.12.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss