CR No.6186 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6186 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.09.2010 Mairajudin ....Petitioner Vs. Tarlochan Singh Thandi ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Shiv P.Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioner. --- 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This is tenant's revision against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, ordering eviction of the petitioner, on an application moved under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 (for short the Act). CR No.6186 of 2010 2 The respondent/landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity, by pleading that on the death of her mother, the respondent/landlord became owner of the premises and on the first floor of SCO Nos.98-99-100, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. An investment of ` 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) was made. The respondent/landlord got the possession of the adjoining shop for expanding his business. He opened a restaurant in the name and style of the “Komfort Inn” on the first and second floors of the premises. The case of the landlord/respondent was, that there was a kitchen inside the area which occupied the major portion and he could only installed three tables with four chairs each i.e. to adjust only 12 persons. Smoke from the kitchen was affecting his business. Best efforts made by installing chimney and exhaust fan to throw out the smell and smoke, but it did not give the desired result, therefore, premises in occupation of the petitioner/tenant was required to expand the business. The need projected was proved by leading cogent evidence. The learned authorities below on appreciation of evidence recorded a concurrent finding of fact, that the respondent/landlord needed the premises for his own use and occupation. In order to arrive at this conclusion, learned Rent Controller as well as the learned appellate authority relied upon the well settled principles of law, that it is for the landlord to decide as to from where he is to run his business. The only question to be considered was to see, that the need should be bona fide and not mere desire. CR No.6186 of 2010 3 The petition was opposed by the petitioner/tenant by pleading therein, that the landlord had sufficient accommodation to run his business, as he had guest house/hotel in the first and second floors of SCO and therefore, did not need the premises for personal necessity. Plea raised was that the petition was filed only to increase the rent. Plea was also raised that the premises in possession of the tenant was only 17' x 8' which could not to help the landlord in any manner. Plea was also raised that the landlord had no interest in running his business independently. In view of the evidence, stand taken was, that the landlord had a basement and some other premises to expand his business, therefore, need could not be said to be bona fide. This plea was not accepted for the reason that the basement could not be used for running of the restaurant, as per the laws applicable to Union Territory. Furthermore, it was not for the tenant to dictate as to how the landlord should run his business. Mr.Shiv P.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant, challenged the order passed by the authorities below, by contending that impugned order of eviction cannot be sustained as the respondent/landlord had alternative accommodation including the basement, as also the top of the building. The object of expanding business, could be achieved in the said premises. This plea cannot be accepted, as was rightly rejected by the authorities under the Act as it was not for the tenant to direct the landlord CR No.6186 of 2010 4 as to how he should expand his business. It was for the landlord to decide how he wished to run the business, and not for the court or for the tenant to direct how the premises in his possession were required to be used. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the purpose for which building was sought to be vacated was for such a business, which is a health hazard to the other occupiers, therefore, could not be said to be a bona fide need, as held by the authorities i.e. the Rent Controller and appellate authority. This contention is again misconceived, as it is not in dispute that the landlord is in fact running the business, without any objection from the other inhabitants. Rather the suggestion of the tenant was that the landlord should run his business from the basement and second floor. It was not even disputed by the tenant/petitioner, that the landlord was allowed to run the business by the Administration. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter contended that the plea raised by the landlord that he had spent one crore of rupees, and was required to expand business to meet his liability, could not be accepted as no evidence was led of availing of loan or the liability for repayment. Therefore, finding of the learned authorities cannot be sustained. This contention again is misconceived. Once it is not disputed, that the respondent/landlord in fact has set up the business, and he was running it, the need for expanding could not be said to be mere wish but bona fide necessity as concurrently held by the learned authorities. It was not for the landlord to prove the source of finances spent by him, as tenant CR No.6186 of 2010 5 has nothing to do with the arrangement or liabilities of the landlord. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of eviction is likely to result in loss of livelihood of the petitioner/tenant and therefore respective hardship was required to be seen. This contention again is misconceived, as there is no provision under the Act to decide the case on the ground of hardship. In order to succeed on the ground of bona fide requirement, the landlord is only to prove bona fide need which the landlord successfully proved by leading cogent evidence. The plea of the landlord could not be said to be fanciful or mere desire, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the reasons stated, finding no merit in this revision petition, it is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. 24.09.2010 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge