CR No.3462 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3462 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:04.07.2011. Arun Tayal and others ...Petitioners Versus Dr. Jagmohan Chopra and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kushagar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate, for the respondents/caveators. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenants are in revision against order of the learned Appellate Authority by which order of the learned Rent Controller has been reversed and they have been asked to vacate the demised premises on account of bona fide necessity of the landlord. In brief, Roshan Lal Chopra was the landlord of the demised premises who had let out its front portion lying towards Nakodar Road to Sita Ram, father of the tenants, who had inherited his tenancy rights after his death and the other portion situated towards eastern side was let out to the tenants. Both the tenancies were created on the same day vide rent note dated 25.11.1988 at the monthly rent of `8,000/- and both the portions of the tenancy were joined together with a gallery. Roshan Lal Chopra filed the eviction petition through his General Power of Attorney Chander Mohan Chopra, inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 01.03.2001 @ `8,000/- per month and for bona fide necessity of his son Dr. Jagmohan Chopra (MD) who is running his hospital under the name and style of Chopra Maternity and CR No.3462 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - ****** Nursing Home, near Old District Courts, Ludhiana who wanted to expand it at Jalandhar as well. In reply, the rent note dated 25.11.1988 and the rate of rent was not denied but it was alleged that the rent was offered from November 1999 to 12.03.2001 by way of cheque which was not encashed. Thereafter, the rent was tendered from 01.04.2001 to 31.10.2003 along with interest and costs amounting to `2,68,300/- on the first date of hearing, therefore, the issue of non-payment of rent had become redundant. The tenant has alleged that there was no bona fide necessity on the part of the landlord because his son Dr. Jagmohan Chopra is permanently settled at Ludhiana. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Chander Mohan Chopra, General Power of Attorney of the landlord appeared as (AW1), Jagmohan Chopra as (AW2) and Bhagat Singh as (AW3), whereas on the other hand, Deepak Sood appeared as (RW1), Inderjit Singh (RW2) and Yash Tayal (RW3). The learned Rent Controller did not agree with the landlord in respect of his personal necessity, but the learned Appellate Authority had observed that though Dr. Jagmohan Chopra is having his hospital at Ludhiana where he is permanently residing yet he cannot be deprived of his right to start his Nursing Home in another city. While assailing order of the Appellate Authority, learned counsel for the tenant has submitted that the landlord Roshan Lal Chopra had renounced the world in 1986 and had settled at Mahadev Ashram, Maharashtra where he died in the year 2005. The case set up by the landlord is that the demised premises was required by him for construction of hospital by his son Dr. Jagmohan Chopra at Jalandhar, whereas there is no evidence on record of any correspondence between father and the son who could not even tell his phone number, therefore, it is argued that it is a case of mere desire and not the need. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sri Kempaiah v. Lingaiah, 2002(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 532 to contend that even in a case where the tenant does not contest or dispute the claim of the landlord and the tenancy is governed by the Rent Control legislation, the Court is obliged to look into the claim independently and give a specific finding in that regard. On the contrary, learned counsel for the landlord has submitted that CR No.3462 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - ****** the attorney of Roshan Lal Chopra has categorically disclosed phone number of his father as 22756 and though Dr. Jagmohan Chopra has stated that he did not receive any letter from his father, yet he had volunteered that he has been talking on phone with him. In this regard, the learned Appellate Authority has observed that in the present era people are prone to talk on phones then indulging in correspondence and both the sons of the landlord have categorically stated that they have been in touch with their father on telephone who had then required the demised premises for starting a new hospital at Jalandhar by his son who is already a successful doctor at Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the landlord has also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramkubai since deceased by LRs. v. Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak, 1999(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 213 in which the landlady required the demised premises for her son to run Kiryana business but she did not enter the witness box, however, her son supported her claim. In this regard, it was held that there is no ground to conclude that there was no bona fide need of the landlady. In the case of M/s. Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors., 2005(8) S.C.C. 252, it was held that if the landlord is doing business at place `A' and wanted to expand it at place `B', the need of the premises at latter place is found to be bona fide as it is the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature and place of the business for which the tenant cannot advise him. He has also referred to a decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Satpal Vijay Kumar v. Sushil Kumar, 2011(2) RCR (Civil) 82 in which it was held that when eviction is sought on the ground of bona fide need, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the assumption that requirement is not bona fide. If the landlord states that he needs the demised shop for establishment of new business or to extend the business, his need should always be presumed as correct and genuine. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised by both the learned counsel for the parties and the law cited by them, I have found that if the father/landlord has not been interacting with his son through letters and was in contact through telephone, it cannot be presumed that there was no dialogue between them for the purpose of CR No.3462 of 2011 (O&M) - 4 - ****** discussing requirement of the son for expanding his business. Moreover, there is no legal hitch in this case which can compel this Court to disturb the order of the Appellate Authority by taking a different view from the view taken by the Appellate Authority while reversing the order of the learned Rent Controller. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. July 04, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE