IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5302 of 2007 Date of decision: 10th November, 2010 Jaspal Singh … Petitioner Versus Bahadur Singh and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. D.S. Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Bahadur Singh and his mother Parkash Wati instituted a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for causing eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises, the description of which has been given in the head-note of the ejectment petition. It was stated therein that the petitioner-tenant was inducted by Gurdial Singh, father of respondent No.1 and husband of respondent No.2 at a monthly rent of Rs.500/- and the terms of tenancy were reduced into writing on 30th October, 1976. Gurdial Singh died on 1st February, 1987 and respondent No.1-Bahadur Singh along with his mother respondent No.2-Parkash Wati and other three brothers, namely, Devinder Singh, Saudagar Singh and Kuldip Singh, succeeded to the property. As per the Will, their mother respondent No.2-Parkash Wati was given rights to raise the rent and utilize the same till her lifetime. It is stated that in the first week of December 1988, a family settlement was arrived at. The property was partitioned and the area in possession of the petitioner- Civil Revision No.5302 of 2007 tenant fell to the share of respondent No.1-Bahadur Singh. In the month of March 1995, petitioner was permitted to raise construction of an office and the rent was enhanced to Rs.1,025/- qua the tenancy of office, which was already treated as one and indivisible for all intents and purposes. In the eviction petition to cause ejectment of the petitioner- tenant, two grounds were pleaded. Firstly, it was stated that the petitioner- tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 1st November, 1997 and he had also not paid the house tax with effect from 1st April, 1996. Secondly, it was pleaded that the premises was required by respondent No.1-Bahadur Singh for his own use and occupation. It was stated that respondent No.1- Bahadur Singh was having his wife and three daughters. The eldest daughter, namely Paramjit Kaur was married and the other two, namely Satwant Kaur and Amarjeet Kaur were of marriageable age and their marriage was to be performed. It was further averred that respondent No.1-Bahadur Singh intend to start his own workshop to earn his livelihood, for performing the marriage of his daughters. It was further pleaded that respondent No.1-Bahadur Singh was not in possession of any other premises in the urban area of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. The petitioner-tenant caused appearance and denied the ground of personal necessity. The grounds pleaded by respondent No.1-Bahadur Singh were specifically denied. The Rent Controller, Ludhiana, after completion of pleadings, had drawn the following issues: “1. Whether the rent tendered by the petitioner is short and invalid? OPP 2. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the suit property on the grounds as alleged by the petitioner? 3. Relief.” After the evidence was led, the Rent Controller came to a conclusion that since the rent was tendered, the ground of non-payment of 2 Civil Revision No.5302 of 2007 rent was not available. However, the eviction petition was dismissed on the ground that the landlord had failed to prove his personal necessity. The evidence led by respondent No.1-Bahadur Singh was dealt with by the Rent Controller in the following manner: “Therefore, this specific ground, which is taken by the petitioners in the present petition, has not been proved by the petitioners. The second ground of petitioners for eviction of respondent from demised property is that petitioner No.1 requires this property for his own use and occupation as he has family consisting of his wife and three daughters and petitioner No.1 wants to start his business in demised property but no sufficient and cogent evidence has been brought on record by petitioners in order to prove this second ground for eviction of respondent from demised property. Although, petitioners have brought above said evidence which I already discussed above, in which, AW-1 Khusha Ram is Clerk of office of Sub Registrar, Nawan Shahar, AW- 2 Ashok Kumar is scribe of Will Ex.P-1 of Gurdial Singh, AW- 3 Mohinder Singh is attesting witness of above said Will of Gurdial Singh and AW-4 Ajaib Singh is attesting witness of partition deed Ex.AW4/1. No witness, out of them deposed with regard to this very ground for eviction. Only petitioner No.1 Jaspal Singh himself appeared in this case as AW-5 and deposed all these facts. So, single testimony of AW-5 lying on record, is not sufficient to prove this alleged ground for eviction of respondent. In the lack of such type of evidence, this Court is hereby held that petitioners have failed to prove this very ground for eviction of respondent from demised property. Therefore, after my above discussion, I am of considered view that petitioners have failed to prove both these issues and same are hereby decided against petitioners and in favour of respondent.” Aggrieved against the same, respondents filed an appeal. The appellate authority reversed the findings returned by the Rent Controller, 3 Civil Revision No.5302 of 2007 Ludhiana that the premises was not required for personal necessity and observed as under: “12. After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both the counsel for the parties and going through the testimony of AW5 Bahadur Singh, petitioner No.1 and the law put forth by counsel for the appellants, I come to the definite conclusion that the sole testimony of AW5 Bahadur Singh, petitioner No.1 is sufficient to prove that the premises in dispute is required for his personal use and necessity. The landlord is the best judge to decide about his personal necessity. It is for him whether he wants to start some business or not in the premises in dispute of which he is the owner. In the present case, petitioner No.1 is serving in some private milk society from where he is earning only Rs.1700/- P.M., which is a very small income to support his family. The testimony of Parkash Wati, petitioner No.2 mother of petitioner No.1 is not required to prove this ground of personal necessity. Her consent is not required by petitioner No.1. So, petitioners have rightly proved that the premises in dispute is required by petitioner No.1 for his personal use and necessity and thus this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and the findings given by the Rent Controller against the petitioners on this issue is reversed.” Mr.D.S. Bali, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Salil Bali, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, has not disputed the relationship of tenant-landlord and the quantum of rent. However, it has been stated that the appellate authority committed a grave error in reversing the well reasoned findings returned by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana. To appreciate this contention, it will be necessary to notice evidence led by the parties. Respondent No.1-Bahadur Singh had tendered his affidavit as AW-5, para No.9 whereof reads as under: 4 Civil Revision No.5302 of 2007 “9. That the deponent bonafidely requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation. The deponent has a wife Kulwaran Kaur and three daughters namely Paramjit Kaur, Satwant Kaur and Amarjeet Kaur. Paramjit Kaur is already married and whereas the second daughter of the deponent namely Satwant Kaur married during the pendency of the petition. The third daughter of the deponent Amarjeet Kaur has completed her M.A. and is still unmarried. At the time of filing of the petition the deponent was without any work. He had been selling milk in the village in which he has suffered losses. Now to meet the day to day expenses for their livelihood the deponent is doing a private job in M/s Karana Milk Society on a monthly salary of Rs.1700/-. The deponent wants to start his own workshop business in the demised premises for earning his livelihood and for performing the marriage of his 3rd daughter. Without any proper business in his hand the deponent is unable to marry his daughter in a good family. The property is urgently and immediately required by the deponent for running a workshop in the property and for his use and occupation. The petitioner No.2 mother of deponent also dependent upon the deponent. The petitioners are not in possession of any other non residential building in their own rights in the urban area of Ludhiana Municipal Corporation nor they have vacated any other property.” I have perused the cross-examination of respondent No.1- Bahadur Singh also, wherein he specifically stated that he was residing in village Karana, District Nawanshahar for the last 15 years. He owned one house and 2 kanals of agricultural land and was cultivating the said land. He further deposed that he was doing service in M/s Karana Milk Society and was drawing Rs.1700/- per month as salary, and was 63 years old. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.1-Bahadur Singh was 63 years old on 1st June, 2005 and today he must of 68 years of age and he will not be in a position to carry on his business. It was 5 Civil Revision No.5302 of 2007 specifically testified by respondent No.1-Bahadur Singh in his cross- examination that in partition, this property had fallen to his share and that he was only working as an employee of M/s Karana Milk Society and was drawing Rs.1700/- per month. He further stated that he wanted to start his own workshop to earn his livelihood. Therefore, the appellate authority has rightly held that the ground of personal necessity of respondent No.1- Bahadur Singh is made out. The Rent Controller had primarily discarded the testimony of respondent No.1-Bahadur Singh on the ground that he being a solitary witness had not been able to prove his personal necessity. The courts have always taken a view that it is quality and not the quantity of evidence, which is to be taken into consideration. Respondent No.1-Bahadur Singh had stated in categoric terms that he required the premises to start business of workshop, so that he could supplement his income and marry his daughters. Respondent No.1- Bahadur Singh was thoroughly cross-examined, but the petitioner could not gain any advantage and has not been able to assail the ground of personal necessity. The testimony of Bahadur Singh aspires confidence. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that Parkash Wati, mother of respondent No.1-Bahadur Singh was not examined and she was beneficiary of the Will as the rent had to accrue to her. Parkash Wati had instituted the eviction petition along with her son respondent No.1-Bahadur Singh. Respondent No.1-Bahadur Singh, when examined, was 63 years old. So, it can be safely presumed that Parkash Wati, at that time, was in her late 80s, therefore, her examination was not necessary. Even otherwise, her testimony was only to corroborate the deposition made by respondent No.1-Bahadur Singh. 6 Civil Revision No.5302 of 2007 This Court is of the opinion that the findings returned by the appellate authority are based upon valid reasons and no interference is warranted. Hence the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner-tenant is granted two months’ time to hand over the actual physical peaceful vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 10, 2010 rps 7