Civil Revision No.7037 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION : 7.12.2010 Hans Raj Bhatia PETITIONER VERSUS Vijay Kumar RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri Yash Paul Khullar, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J. This revision petition filed by the landlord is directed against the order dated 10.6.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority and the order dated 14.10.2009 by which the review petition preferred by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed. The petitioner who is the landlord of the premises, filed a petition for eviction of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. the Rent Controller allowed the petition, whereas in the appeal Civil Revision No.7037 of 2009 -2- preferred by the respondent/tenant, the findings have been reversed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority suffers from a grave infirmity, as the entire claim of the petitioner has been declined only on the ground that the petitioner had failed to plead and prove that he was not occupying any other premises in the area in question and had not vacated such a building without sufficient reasons. As such, the Appellate Court concluded that the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 have not been entirely complied with. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent despite the fact that he was served on 10.2.2010. The case having been adjourned a number of times and no one appearing on behalf of the respondent, the Court is thus left with no other option, but to take into consideration the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has contended that it was specifically pleaded by the petitioner that the premises are required by him for his own personal use and occupation. It was next contended that the petitioner is at an advanced age of 77 years and his wife is also beyond 70 years and is suffering from several ailments and it is difficult for them to live alone and desire some child or relative to stay with them. As observed earlier, the prayer was declined only on the ground that the petitioner had failed to plead that he had not vacated any other premises in the area where the demised premises is situated. I am not in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court. It is now a settled proposition of law that it is the landlord who is the best judge of his property. A three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Prativa Devi(Smt.) v. T.V.Krishnan (1996) 5 S.C.C.353, dealt with a case arising out of personal necessity of a landlady qua a rented premises and held as under :- “The landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. Civil Revision No.7037 of 2009 -3- He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. xx xxx xxx xxx There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property.” In Sarla Ahula v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1998(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 533 (S.C.), it has been held by the Supreme Court that the Rent Controller should not proceed on the assumption that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. According to the view taken in the said judgment, once the landlord shows a prima facie case, a presumption of bona fide requirement can be raised in his favour and it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlords as to how they could adjust themselves. In Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999) 6 S.C.C. 222= 1999(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 141 (S.C.), the Apex Court, in a detailed judgment, while dealing with the personal need of a landlord, analysed the concept of bona fide requirement and said that the requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretense or pretext to evict the tenant refers to a state of mind prevailing with the landlord and then it was observed that “the only way of peeping into the mind of the landlord is an exercise undertaken by the judge of facts by placing himself in the armchair of the landlord and the posing a question to himself – whether in the given facts, substantiated by the landlord, the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest ? and if the answer be in the positive, the need is bona fide. In Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde and another J.T. 1999(3) S.C.283, the Apex Court observed in paragraph-8 of the Civil Revision No.7037 of 2009 -4- judgment as follows :- “8. When a landlord says that he needs the building for his own occupation there is no doubt that he has to prove it. But there is no warrant for presuming that his need is not bona fide. The statute enjoins that the Court should be satisfied of his requirement. So the Court would look into the broad aspects and if the Court feels any doubt about the bona fides of the requirement it is for the landlord to clear such doubts. Even in a case where the tenant does not contest or dispute the claim of the landlord the court has to look into the claim independently albeit landlord's burden gets lessened by such non-dispute. In appropriate cases it is open to the court to presume that the landlord's requirement is bona fide and put the contesting tenant to the burden to show how the requirement is not bona fide.” In Atma S.Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh 2003(1) Rent Control Reporter 42 (S.C.), their Lordships of the Supreme Court noticed the above mentioned judgments and then expressed the similar view. In Sait Nagjee Purushottam & Co. Ltd. v. Vimlabai Prabhulal and others (2005) 8 S.C.C. 252, it was observed that it is always the prerogative of the landlord to decide for what purpose he requires premises in question and that it is not tenant who can dictate terms to landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. The Appellate Authority ought to have appreciated the controversy in this regard in view of the observations of the Supreme Court. The overwhelming factor which should have weighed with the Appellate Authority while deciding the issue, was that the petitioner is at an advanced age of 77 years and so is his wife. If at this stage of life, the landlord wishes his premises to be exclusively used by Civil Revision No.7037 of 2009 -5- him, then this itself ought to be considered a valid need on the part of the landlord. Such a person cannot be pushed to the throes and rigors of another round of litigation, on some technicality of law, the result of which, in all probability, he will not live to see. This could not have been the intended scope of legislation which provided that a premises can be got vacated on the ground of personal use and occupation. A desire of an old couple to free their property from a tenacious tenant cannot be understood to be a greed of a landlord, rather it is a necessity and a wish which a civilized society ought to respect by restoring the possession of his property to him. In the opinion of this Court, this clause of personal necessity has to be liberally construed and the need of the landlord need not be viewed by the Court by taint of suspicion. For the above said reasons, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order passed by the Lower Appellate Court is set aside. ( MAHESH GROVER ) December 2010 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO