Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 Date of Decision: 10.11.2008 Gian Chand … Petitioner Versus Parveen Kumar …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The petitioner is a landlord-Non Resident Indian who has failed before learned Rent Controller to evict the tenant. The findings of learned Rent Controller originated not only from the pleadings, and accompanying circumstances but from the appreciation of evidence also. Before the findings returned by learned Rent Controller are considered, it will be apposite here to reproduce para 5 of the eviction petition:- “5. That the respondent is liable to ejectment as the petitioner who is owner landlord and is a non- resident Indian has since returned to India. The petitioner was earlier in Jury services at London and now since retired. The petitioner now wants to settle Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 2 in India at Jalandhar alongwith his wife which is the birth place of the petitioner. Now in the old age the Petitioner wants to remain at Jalandhar, at his native place, close to his nears and dears and wants to permanently settle at Jalandhar. The Petitioner requires the demised premises alongwith other rented shops for his personal use and occupation for doing the business. The petitioner does not own or possess any other non-residential building in the urban area of Jalandhar. The shop in dispute alongwith other portion of the premises i.e. property no. 56-57 was rented out by the Petitioner as the petitioner was going abroad and to keep the property in good condition and now the petitioner after retirement the Petitioner decided to come back. The petitioner not only requires the premises in dispute but other residential as well as non- residential portions also which are with other tenants”. Mr. Jindal, during the course of arguments, has provided the eviction petition and laid much emphasis as to how this part of pleadings has been incorporated. To controvert these averments made, a written statement was filed in which it was stated that shop in question along with other portions of property Nos. 56 and 57 have been rented out to many tenants. It was stated that the petitioner had earlier filed, in his capacity Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 3 as landlord qua the land owned by his wife, ejectment petition against one tenant Jyoti Rana which consist of one shop at ground floor and three rooms, bathroom, latrine etc. The petitioner succeeded in that petition and the shop was vacated. Lateron, this shop was let out to another tenant Manoj Aggarwal. Furthermore, it was stated that the petitioner was in vacant possession of sufficient accommodation of building Nos. 56 and 57 and besides this he is in possession of property No. 58, Shiv Nagar, Sodal Road, Jalandhar and the petitioner has concealed the fact regarding his possession and ownership of other premises in the eviction petition. It was also stated that petitioner had installed a board outside the building for the sale of it. It was stated that there are photographs available with the tenant regarding the board displayed for sale. During the course of arguments, it was also submitted before the Court below that the landlord had also rented out a shop in the same building to Shakuntla Devi before filing of the eviction petition. It was also stated that many ejectment petitions have been filed. Four of such petitions are listed today together. Learned Rent Controller noticed the arguments advanced by the landlord that the premises are required for his personal use. He also noticed that copy of passport Ex.A5 has been proved. Sale deed Ex.A1 and copy of the sale deed in favour of Swaran Kaur Ex.A2 along with site plan Ex.A3 were also noticed by learned Rent Controller. Relying upon the ratio of law that Non Resident Indian landlord has a bonafide requirement, the argument pressed before learned Rent Controller was that the petitioner after his retirement require the premises for his own Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 4 use and occupation. Before learned Rent Controller, on behalf of the tenant, it was urged that there is a greed to get the property vacated. The conduct of the tenant and the averments made by him are such which disentitle him from getting the premises vacated. He has failed to prove his bonafide necessity. Learned Rent Controller observed as under:- “11. I have gone through the file and have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I find that the need of the petitioner is not bonafide. The petitioner has filed three other petitions against different tenants. All these tenants are tenants in the same building. It is crystal clear from the previous litigation that the petitioner got a shop vacated from one Jyoti Rana. He let it out vide a rent deed to one Manoj Aggarwal, the fact which is clear from the photocopy of the register of deed writer. Now here we are deciding the question of bonafide requirement which I find is not based on the documents alone. The conduct of the parties is very relevant. The petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. He has concealed the material facts from the Court. He has denied the fact that he has rented out the property to one Manoj Aggarwal but this photocopy of the extract of the register is clear evidence that the petitioner has rented out the portion which he got vacated under Section 13-B of Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 5 the Act to one Manoj Aggarwal. Now the bonafide requirement is that he wants to settle down in India. But he has not shown that how the property in dispute is required by him. The property in dispute is a commercial property. He has not proved that what type of business he wants to start. It is clear cut law that the petitioner can use this right only once in a life. Now filing four different applications against different tenants for the vacation of the commercial property goes to show that his intention is only to get the property vacated and then rent it out to different tenants. This desire of the petitioner is clear from his conduct. The case would ;have been otherwise if he has proved that he wants to start a particular business which he has to run in different shops which are under the occupation of different tenants. Now as per the judgment Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta 1999(2) RCR 141 (discussed supra), it has been beautifully rules that requirement is not a mere desire. Degree of intensity contemplated by requirement is much higher than in mere desire. The Judge of facts should place himself in the arm chair of landlord and then ask question to himself whether in the given facts, the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real and honest. Similarly, in Baldev Singh Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 6 Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini 2006 AIR (SC) 59; 2005(2) RCR (Rent) 470; 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 492 (discussed supra), it has been held that if the landlord fails to prove that requirement is not bonafide and is a pretext to get the accommodation vacated, then he is not entitled to the ejectment. The landlord has to prove that for which purpose he wants to get the property vacated from the tenants. Now going through the pleadings and evidence, it is clear that the intention shown is that he wants to settle down in India along with his wife with his nears and dears. The property in the petition is a commercial property. It is clear that Petitioner is having sufficient accommodation with him which is residential one and how the commercial property is required by him, is a mystery. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent”. I have heard Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner. He has drawn my attention to the site plan attached with the petition as Annexure P1. Perusal of the site plan will show that the property is 75' x 75' consist of many shops and has been rented out to various persons. Mr. Jindal also drawn my attention to Annexure P4, statement of one tenant Parveen Kumar. He has drawn my attention to his cross- examination wherein he has admitted that it is correct that the board Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 7 does not contain any contact number and name of seller. He has further stated that statement of Manoj Aggarwal was put to the tenant and tenant agreed that the shop was tenanted to Manoj Aggarwal with an understanding that he will vacate the same as and when possession from another tenant is taken. To buttress this argument, Mr. Jindal has further stated that shop was rented out to Manoj Aggarwal out of necessity as electricity meter was there and he was to look after it and there was no other option except to rent out the shop to Manoj Aggarwal. It has been further stated that the premises is divided into two parts and the other portion in which the shops have been situated had been purchased by the petitioner as owner and the other part where the shop was rented out to Manoj Aggarwal was purchased by his wife Swaran Kaur. It was further stated that the petitioner does not own any other building. A perusal of eviction petition filed will show that the petitioner not only requires the premises in dispute but other residential and non- residential premises which are with other tenants. Learned Rent Controller has held the property to be commercial and has concluded that the landlord had not specified as to what business he has to start in the evening of his life when after his retirement he would come to Jalandhar. Coupled with this, learned Rent Controller has taken into consideration the conduct of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the property which has been purchased by Swaran Kaur, petitioner is landlord. A specific averment made in eviction petition is that landlord does not own or possess any other non-residential building. Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 8 Earlier, ejectment petition against Jyoti Rana was also filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said petition was withdrawn. If this argument is accepted, it in no way materially affects the findings arrived by learned Rent Controller which are just. The findings of learned Rent Controller are not such which can be said to be perverse. This can be one view which can be reasonably drawn and from appreciation of the evidence, the vie w taken by learned Rent Controller cannot be said to be perfunctory. While exercising my revisional jurisdiction, no interference is warranted. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 10, 2008 “DK”