Civil Revision No. 6036 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6036 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.4.2010 The State of Haryana and another ...Petitioners Versus Sajjan Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Ms. Maloo Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioners. Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for the respondents. S.D.ANAND, J. A plea filed by the respondents-landlord for the ejectment of the petitioners-tenants ( The State of Haryana through its Chief Secretary and the Controller, Printing & Stationery Department, Haryana, Sector-18, Chandigarh) from the tenanted premises (basement of the indicated SCO) came to be negatived by the learned Rent Controller who, in support of the view aforementioned, sought sustenance from the fact that respondent no.1 Sajjan Kumar did not enter the witness box inspite of the fact that it was he only who was averred to be inclined to use the tenanted premises, as a godown, for storage of goods relateable to general merchandise business which the respondents are carrying on in SCF No.151, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh. (“In the petitioners evidence, petitioner no.1 Sajjan Kumar has not stepped into the witness box, in Civil Revision No. 6036 of 2008 -2- **** spite of the fact that it was petitioner no.1, who intends to use the demised premises a s a godwon for storing extra goods of his General merchants business, being carried from SCF No.151, Sector 26, Graim Market, Chandigarh. This has seriously caused prejudice to the respondents as they are not in a position to cross-examined petitioner No.1 regarding his bonafide requirement for the use and occupation of the demised premises.”) Besides it, the learned Rent Controller was also influenced by the fact that there was nothing on record to prove how exactly Sajjan Kumar had been running the business in spite of the averred shortage of space. (“the onus to prove the existing status of the business being run by petitioner no.1 in the neighbourhood premises bearing SCF No.151, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh was on the petitioners, however, the petitioners have brought forth no explanation as to how since the last three years the difficulty is being felt for storage of goods in the shop by petitioner no.1, when the same difficulty has not been faced since the year 1969.”). Apart therefrom, the learned Rent Controller also noticed that respondent Sajjan Kumar had, in a communication addressed to the petitioner no.2, indicated that the tenanted premises are required to expand the business to earn livelihood and to settle the family. It was noticed that the communication aforementioned nowhere indicated that the tenanted premises were required for storage of goods aforementioned. In appeal, however, respondents/landlord tasted success. It was observed by the learned Appellate Authority that the non Civil Revision No. 6036 of 2008 -3- **** examination of Sajjan Kumar respondent was inconsequential in view of the fact that respondent-landlord Harish Kumar and respondent- landlady Mst. Shakuntala Devi, who is wife of Sajjan Kumar and mother of Harish Kumar entered the witness box and testified the validity of the demand for vacation of the tenanted premises for personal bonafide necessity. Qua the other facets relied upon by the learned Rent Controller, it was observed by the learned Appellate Authority that there was nothing wrong on the part of the respondents-landlord in filing the plea for ejectment only when they felt the need for expansion of business aforementioned. The tenants are in revision against it. The learned State Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, vehemently argues that the respondents-landlord could not have validly filed a plea for ejectment in view of the contractual clause in the lease deed itself that the petitioners-tenants would not be liable to vacate the building till suitable accommodation was made available to them on rent assessed by the PWD authorities. The relevant clause is extracted hereunder:- “The department will not vacate the building untill any other suitable accommodation will be available on the rent assessed by the P.W.D. Authorities.” The plea raised suffers from the vice of want of maintainability. It (i.e. the plea raised) is also open to the charge of being being contradiction to the age old legal proposition that there can be no estoppel against the law. The following observations shall Civil Revision No. 6036 of 2008 -4- **** support this view of mine. There can be no dispute with the proposition that there is no estoppel against the law and a party cannot be said to be bound by even a contract clause if it impede the exercise of right vested in that party. The rent legislation governing the roost entitles a landlord to apply for the eviction of tenants if the former requires the premises for personal bonafide necessity. Thus any contractual clause to the contrary would be indefensible and enforceable. A perusal of Annexure P/1 would further indicate that there was, in any case, no liability upon the respondents-landlord to make any alternative suitable accommodation available to the petitioners-tenants. In that view of things too, the relevant clause pales into insignificance. Insofar as the non examination of Sajjan Kumar is concerned, the learned Appellate Authority had appropriately held that it does not affect the merits of the case. There is nothing in the petition which could give rise to an inference that petitioners/landlords had applied for vacation of the premises only for use by Harish Kumar or any one of them. Infact, the clear and categorical averment, made in the course of the petitioner, indicates that the tenanted premises are required by all the respondents- landlord for storage of general merchandise goods. It is common ground otherwise that the premises where the respondents-landlords are presently running their business is just across the road from the tenanted premises. There is nothing unnatural in the case projected Civil Revision No. 6036 of 2008 -5- **** by the respondents-landlord that they require the tenanted premises for storage of the goods relate-able to the business of general merchandise. Even otherwise, the stance of the respondents- landlord was testified on oath by Harish Kumar and his mother Mst. Shakuntala Devi. Both of them, in a forth right manner, made a deposition on oath supportive of the plea for personal bonafide necessity. Their credit could not be shaken or impeached in the course of cross-examination. It is not even the plea on behalf of the petitioners-tenants that any other premise in the immediate vicinity of the area, in which general merchandise is being presently run by the respondents, is available which could be used for storage of goods etc. In the light of foregoing discussion, I have no reservations in observing that correct view in the matter was obtained by the learned Appellate Authority which, for adequate and acceptable reasons, over turned the verdict recorded by the learned Rent Controller. Faced with the predicament aforementioned, learned State Counsel states that little extra while may be granted to the petitioners-tenant to vacate the premises aforementioned. The plea raised is very reasonable. By the very nature of things, the functioning of the petitioner would be essentially impersonal in character. The location of an appropriate office accommodation is a fairly difficult exercise. Obviously, the Government record etc. cannot be retained in open. In appreciation of all these difficulties, it Civil Revision No. 6036 of 2008 -6- **** is ordered that the petition shall stand dismissed. However, the petitioners shall have one year time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. April 22, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge