IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6700 of 2007 Date of decision: 25th November, 2008 Satpal and others … Petitioners Versus Raman and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Gurmail Singh Duhan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Kirna Devi preferred an eviction petition against the petitioner tenant. It was stated therein that Basheshar Dass is the tenant in the shop, which has been described and detailed in the eviction petition, at an annual rent of Rs.5962/-. House tax was to be paid separately. Two grounds were taken in the eviction petition. Firstly, that the tenant has defaulted in the payment of rent w.e.f. 5th February, 2002. The second ground pleaded was that Kirna Devi is having two sons, namely Sanjay Kumar and Raman Kumar. Sanjay Kumar son is married, having three school going children. He is running a small commission agency in Old Anaaj Mandi, Kaithal in shop No. 51-A under the name and seal of Sanjay Kumar Rachit Kumar and in the same premises, other son Raman Kumar is also running a business of commission agency under the name and seal of Deen Dayal Raman Kumar. It was stated that the shop No. 51-A is measuring 7 feet x 6 feet, therefore it is not adequate for two sons to carry on the business and therefore, demised premises is required for the elder son Sanjay Kumar to start his wholesale business in the tenanted premises. Civil Revision No. 6700 of 2007 Notice was issued. Respondents caused their appearance and filed written statement. The factum of arrears of rent was denied. It was also denied that the tenanted premises is required by the landlady for the use and occupation of Sanjay Kumar. A counter claim for refund of excess amount of rent paid was also instituted. Issues were framed by the Rent Controller. Sanjay Kumar appeared as PW-1 and Raman Kumar as PW-2. Documents (Ex.A-1 to A- 33) were tendered. Basheshar Dass tenant himself appeared as RW-1 and tendered documents (Ex.R-1 to R-4). The Court had held that there are no arrears of rent and issue No.1 and 2 framed regarding this ground were decided against the landlady. Rent Controller also found that the ground of personal necessity is not made out as it was wrongly stated by the Sanjay Kumar and Raman Kumar that their relations are strained, whereas documents (Ex.R-3 and R-4) reveal that they have jointly purchased a commercial property i.e., poultry farm in the name of their wives. Therefore, it was construed that their relations being harmonious and amicable, plea that separate shop is required as the relations have turned bitter, is not made out. For this reason, ground of personal necessity was declined. The Rent Controller further noticed that Kirna Devi (now deceased) had not appeared during her lifetime and the two sons appeared without being her attorney. Aggrieved against the same, Sanjay Kumar and Raman Kumar, being legal representatives of Kirna Devi and owners and landlord of the property, filed an appeal. The appellate authority held that merely because two brothers have stated that their relations are bitter, it cannot be stated that they were not on speaking terms and therefore, they could not purchase property jointly on the name of their wives. I have heard Mr.G.S. Duhan, counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Rajinder Goel, counsel for the respondent. It is an admitted fact that 2 Civil Revision No. 6700 of 2007 both the brothers Sanjay Kumar and Raman Kumar were carrying on their separate business from the shop No. 51-A, which is a very small shop, measuring 7 feet x 6 feet. By the times, the business has to expand and grow. Two brothers require separate shops, hence, personal necessity is made out. Same were denied on the ground that they stated in the Court that their relations are strained and this fact is not borne out of their conduct because they had purchased joint property in the name of their wives. It is not the case, where there is a mere desire of the landlord to get the tenant vacated. The ground of personal necessity is to be seen from the perspective of need. It is not denied that both brothers are running their separate business from one shop. Therefore, requirement of another shop for running the business separately, is made out. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the findings arrived at by the appellate Court below are upheld. Even otherwise, the view taken by the appellate Court below is not one, which is perverse. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 25, 2008 rps 3