CIVIL REVISION NO.2112 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 12, 2008 Jitender Kumar Kaushik .....Petitioner VERSUS Hari Parshad ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. D. S. Bali, Sr.Advocate with Mr. D. V. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is a tenant and has been ordered to be evicted from a shop occupied by him. He remained unsuccessful in the appeal and has now filed the present revision petition, impugning both the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the appellate Court. The petitioner had taken two shops on rent at Gurgaon in the year 1968. He is running a photo-studio shop by the name of M/s Kaushik Studio and was paying a rent of Rs.47/- per month. The CIVIL REVISION NO.2112 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: respondent sought his ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent with effect from 1.9.1995 to 31.7.1998. The second ground to seek ejectment related to the requirement of a shop for settling the son of the respondent, Deepak Kumar and his widowed daughter-in-law Sunita. Out of the four sons of the respondents, elder one is statedly doing the business of photo-copying in a shop owned by his younger brother, Pawan Kumar, where Pawan Kumar is also running a Panwari Shop. His second son, Ravinder Kumar, has died, leaving behind wife, Sunita with two children. Third son of the respondent, aged 33 years is unemployed having no source of income. The respondent himself is running a Panwari Shop in a wooden Khoka on the Municipal land situated in Sadar Bazar, Gurgaon. This is on Tehbazari. It is pleaded that Deepak son of the respondent alongwith his widowed daughter-in-law, Sunita, wants to run a cloth business in the demised shop. It is pointed out that Deepak is entirely dependent upon the respondent and on Sunita, who is getting a salary of Rs.2,200/- per month while working as a Teacher in the private school. This is not sufficient for Sunita to maintain herself and her two children. Thus, the shop is required for a bonafide need by the respondent It is disclosed that the petitioner is owning two shops, one of which is let out to one Jagdish Kumar @ Rs.200/- per month while other one is lying closed. The petitioner filed a written statement and tendered the arrears of rent as claimed in the petition alongwith costs and interest within the prescribed time as calculated by the Rent Controller. Thus, CIVIL REVISION NO.2112 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: the case was prosecuted only on the ground of bonafide need of the respondent. The petitioner disputed the assertion made by the respondent that the shop is needed for settling the son as claimed or the widowed daughter in law. As per the petitioner, the respondent is running a business of sale of Pan, Biri, Cigarette, Cold drinks, fruit juice etc. as well as that of Photostat/photo copying in a shop owned by him and Deepak, the third son of the respondent, is also running a business of sale of Pan, Biri etc. The petitioner would further maintain that the widowed daughter in law of the respondent, namely, Sunita, has shifted to Delhi alongwith her children after the death of her husband and is having a handsome income. The trial of the rent petition proceeded on the following two issues:- “1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the premises in question for non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1.9.1995 to 31.7.1998?OPP 2. Whether the premises in question is liable to be ejected for bonafide need of the petitioner?OPP After appreciating the evidence and considering the arguments raised, the Rent Controller allowed the petition filed by the respondent and directed ejectment of the petitioner from the demised shop. The Appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and that is how he has filed the present revision petition. The main submission made by counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent had not approached the Court of Rent Controller with clean hands and had also not made relevant CIVIL REVISION NO.2112 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: pleadings. It is stated that the respondent had concealed the true and material facts from the Court concerned. In this regard, it is highlighted that the respondent had not mentioned in the petition that he was in occupation of a tin shed measuring 8-1/2' x 6' situated on the western side of the demised shop, which is taken by the respondent on Tehbazri from the Municipal Committee,Gurgaon. This fact, though was not mentioned by the respondent in the rent petition but was disclosed by him in the replication. Learned counsel would say that the replication can not be treated as a part of pleadings and as such, would insist on his submission that the respondent really made an attempt to conceal the true facts and material from the Court. A perusal of the evidence would show that this fact is disclosed by the respondent in the replication. Even otherwise, it appears that the respondent had made no attempt to conceal any fact especially the fact that he was having a shop in a tin shed. In a site plan annexed with the petition and proved on record as Exhibit AW2/A, the tin shed is shown. It is rightly observed by the appellate Court that if the respondent had any intention to hide this fact, he was not expected to show the tin shed in the site plan, which he himself proved on record. Whatever may be the case, the question to be seen is the effect of disclosure/non-disclosure. Once this fact is on record and has been taken into consideration by the Courts, to appreciate the bonafide need of the respondent, the grievance made by counsel for the petitioner would appear unjustified. The best case CIVIL REVISION NO.2112 OF 2007 :{ 5 }: of the petitioner is that the respondent is having or running a shop in this tin shed and as such, there would not be any bonafide need on his part to settle his son or a widowed daughter in law and even if that is to be done, this could very well be achieved by giving them this shop. In short, the tin shed in occupation of the respondent was to be highlighted by the petitioner to challenge the bonafide need on his part to get the demised shop vacated. The courts below appreciated this aspect to find that this tin shed is of a small size having dimension of 8-1/2 ft. x 6 ft. and is not considered sufficient for the intended clothes business, which the son of the respondent and his widowed daughter-in-law wanted to start. In this background, it is observed that non-mentioning of this tin shed in the rent petition can not be considered fatal to the case of the respondent, for which any advantage is to accrue to the petitioner. The other limb of the submission made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the widowed daughter in law is working and residing at Najafgarh would also not advance the case of the petitioner much. All the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent categorically stated that the widowed daughter in law was regularly visiting Gurgaon, though was employed as a Teacher in a School at Najafgarh, Delhi. It has rightly been observed that for starting a business, that too with her brother in law, it would not be essential for her to stay at the said place. She was found to be earning only a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month, which can not be called sufficient for maintaining herself and her two children. This line of the CIVIL REVISION NO.2112 OF 2007 :{ 6 }: submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, as such, would also not have any persuasive effect on the case as set up by the respondent. Even otherwise, the shop, which is being run at Gurgaon, is a khoka, which is taken on Tehbazari by the respondent. The petitioner was unable to prove his assertion, that in fact his son, was running the Pan, Biri shop and that respondent was enjoying a retired life. Certain photographs were referred to show that the respondent was in fact running the shop, though it may be named as Deepak Pan Corner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity or material irregularity or mis- application or mis-appreciation of evidence, which may call for any interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. February 12 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE