C.R.No.7364 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.RNo.7364 of 2011 Date of decision: 13.12.2011 Ram Avtar .....Petitioner. vs. Anil Kumar ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for petitioner. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 5.5.2010 of Rent controller Jind ordering the eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises and the judgment dated 18.10.2011 of the Appellate authority Jind, dismissing the appeal against the said order of eviction. Shorn of unnecessary details it is suffice to say that eviction of the petitioner has been ordered by the Authorities below on the ground of bona fide requirement of the respondent landlord. The bona fide necessity of the respondent landlord , as set up by him, reads thus:- “(i) That the shop in dispute is required by the petitioner for his bona fide requirement. The petitioner is not occupying any other building nor has vacated any building either in the urban area of Jind or anywhere else. The petitioner was earlier in service as Manager Commercial with Punjab Recorders Ltd.Mohali, Punjab Govt. Undertaking ( a subsidiary of the Punjab Infotech). The staff of the Punjab Recorders Ltd. was retrenched by the Punjab Govt. in the year 2003 and they were retired by a scheme voluntarily retirement scheme from the Govt. of Punjab, so the petitioner was retired from the job in March 2003. However, the said company Punjab recorders C.R.No.7364 of 2011 2 Ltd. was closed in December 2003 finally. (ii)that the petitioner since then is out of job and could not get any job. The petitioner want to settle at his native place at Jind where he got school as well as college education. The petitioner will start a show room of readymade garments in the shop in dispute. He has sufficient funds for opening the show room. So, the petitioner bonafidely required the shop in dispute for running his business.” The ejectment petition was contested by the petitioner denying bona fide requirement of the respondent. It was stated that respondent was doing job and living with his family in Chandigarh and was well settled. It was further stated that a false ground has been taken as the shop in dispute was not required by the respondent. It was further denied that respondent had sufficient funds at his disposal for opening a showroom. After framing of the issues, the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. Rent Controller after hearing counsel for the parties allowed the petition on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent landlord and directed the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent landlord. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Jind, which was also dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Authority observed as under:- Bonafide requirement: The petitioner has taken specific stand that either he was in service as Manager Commercial with Punjab Recorders Ltd. Mohali and Punjab Record Ltd. was given VRS/retrenchment benefit by the Punjab Government as public sector disinvestment commission has recommended for the winding up of the subsidiary by approaching the High Court to appoint a C.R.No.7364 of 2011 3 liquidator on the ground that it was incurring huge losses and was unable to pay the employees. The plea of the petitioner is that he opted for the said scheme and relived from the service on on 16.12.2003. He belons to Jind. He has his paental house for his residence at Jind and has shifted to Chandigarh only for an employment. The petitioner wants to settle at his native place and start a show room of readymade garments in the shop in dispute. He has sufficient funds for the business. He has no other shop throughout India except the shop in dispute. He has neither vacated any building and naot in occupation of any other shop.PW1 G.P.Gupta, Manager has proved documents Ex.P1 toEx.P4. Perusal of documents coupled with theevidence led by the petitioner shows that petitioner was relieved from service the scheme of VRS and compensation was given to the petitionber. It is also clear from the documents Ex.P1 toEx.P4 that earlier company of the petitioner was closed.PW2 Anil Kumar has stated in his evidence that he is the only legal heir of his father vide will, therefore, he becamne only owner of the house and hop. He has no other shop except the shop in dispute. His residential house at Jind is about 80/90 sq.yards and now his cousin (daughter of Mamma) used to reside in the house at Jind and she is his licensee. He had been worked in different companies since 1982 to 2008. Now he has been working as accountant in Chandigarh. He further stated that he is working part time work. He knows about the computer. He relieved from the company as the economic condition of the company was deteriorated. Either he work 9/10 years in Ranbaxy company situated at Delhi. The plea of the respondent is that the shop in dispute is on rent more than 42 years. The shop was taken on rent by his frand-father in the year 1965. The petitioner does not require the shop in dispute for his bona fide requirement for running business. The petitioner and his wife are doing job and he is living with his family in chandigarh and he is well settled. The C.R.No.7364 of 2011 4 petitioner is trained person for operating the computer and is also doing the private job to different persons in accountancy andis earning a lot by his job and a technical expert person and is earning a lot in big city Chandigarh and never stayed in Jind at any stage or time. The petitioner does not want to settle in his native place at Jind and he is not going to start a show room of Readymade Garments in the shop in dispute. False ground has been taken by the petitioner as he is well settled at Chandigarh. He has stated in his cross examination that he did not know whether petitioner was working in the job or not. He further stated that he has been working of accountancy. He did not know what type of work has been done by the petitioner. He did not know what was doing by the petitioner in Punjab recorders Ltd. in the year 2003. He did not know whether he retired from the company in the month of March, 2003. He did not know whether petitioner got vacated any premises. He further stated that he is being residing at Chandigarh. He did not know whether petitioner has been residing on rent at Chandigarh. It is wrong to say that petitioner intends to start readymade garments business in the shop in dispute. It is wrong to say that now petitioner is unemployed. It is undisputed fact that now petitioner has been residing at Chandigarh as he has relieved from the services in the month of March, 2003. He has been working privately the work of accountancy. It has come in evidence that petitioner has not got vacated any premises anywhere in India. Moreover, respondent has stated that petitioner is the only owner of the residential house and shop in dispute. As per the case of the petitioner now he intends to start business of garments in the shop in dispute. He is not in any job. It cannot be said from any stretch of imagination that he would not start the business of the garments. Petitioner is the owner of the shop in dispute and he has also right to start his business at Jind. There is no force in the contention of the counsel for the C.R.No.7364 of 2011 5 respondent that petitioner did not want to start business of Readymade Garments in the shop in dispute.” Still not satisfied the tenant petitioner has filed the instant revision petition challenging the impugned orders of eviction passed by the authorities below. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondent landlord is owning a residential house in Chandigarh and his children are also studying in schools at Chandigarh and in these circumstances it cannot be presumed that the petitioner is likely to shift to Jind and start his business a fresh, as it has come on record that the landlord has never lived at Jind where the suit property is situated. Moreover, he is earning handsomely in the city at Chandigarh by doing his business of Accountant and Consultancy and thus bona fide requirement of respondent requiring the premises to start his own business at Jind in the suit property is not made out. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order/judgment of the authorities below. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has retired from service. It is also not disputed that petitioner belongs to Jind and his parental house is at Jind and he had shifted to Chandigarh because of his employment. As per the averments, the petitioner wants to settle at his native place and start a showroom of readymade garments in the shop in dispute. He has sufficient funds for the business and he has no other shop throughout India except the shop in dispute. The petitioner is not occupying any other building nor has vacated any building either in Urban area Jind or anywhere else. It is well settled that a landlord is the best judge of his needs and the tenant cannot C.R.No.7364 of 2011 6 dictate his terms with regard to the suitability of accommodation etc. Moreover, any lack of expertise and insufficiency of funds is not a ground denying the eviction of the tenant. It is a matter of common knowledge that in our country people after retirement tends to settle at their native place. Thus, in these circumstances it cannot be said that the respondent does not intend to start business at Jind. Moreover, question of bona fide need of the landlord is essentially a question of fact. Both the Courts below on appreciation of eviction have recorded a concurrent finding of fact in favour of the respondent landlord. No material evidence has been pointed out before this Court on the basis of which the findings recorded by the authorities below can be faulted with. Thus, no interference is warranted. Dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge December 13, 2011 rk