Civil Revision No. 1789 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 1789 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.8.2010 Charan Dass …Petitioner Versus Smt. Parkash Rani and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. D.S. Marwaha, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Civil Misc. No. 21060-CII of 2010 The present application has been filed for recalling the order dated 6.8.2010, passed by this Court, whereby the petitioner/tenant was granted one year time to vacate and hand over the actual physical vacant possession of the demised premises. On 6.8.2010, Civil Revision No. 1789 of 2010 was listed for hearing. This Court heard the arguments, advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and was not agreeing with the contentions advanced. At that sage, learned counsel for the petitioner made a prayer that sufficient time be granted to the petitioner to handover actual physical vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondents. This request was accepted by learned counsel for the respondents and on Civil Revision No. 1789 of 2010 (O&M) 2 the basis of broad consensus, the order was passed on 6.8.2010. Today, the present application has been filed, after change of the counsel, with a prayer that the revision petition be decided on merits. Though this Court cannot encourage the change of counsel in this way but still it is duty bound to decide the revision petition on merits. Hence, the order dated 6.8.2010 is recalled. Civil Misc. Application stands disposed of. The present revision petition is taken on the board of this Court, for hearing and disposal. Civil Revision No. 1789 of 2010 The respondents had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for ejectment of the petitioner/tenant from the demised premises. It was stated therein that second floor of House No. 1467 Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, was let out to the petitioner at the monthly rent of Rs.1,250/- excluding electricity charges. It was further pleaded that Amrik Chand along with his wife Parkash Rani, respondent, had purchased 70% of the share of the demised premises consisting of ground floor and second floor, vide registered sale deed dated 29.9.2003. It was further pleaded that the tenant had not paid the rent w.e.f. 20.9.2003. The respondent/landlords had pleaded the ground of personal necessity and stated that the demised premises is required for their own use and occupation. It was specifically stated in the eviction petition that Amrik Chand (landlord) was staying in the tenanted premises and he had purchased the house for his own residence. The tenant disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant and stated that the second floor, where the tenant was residing, was not Civil Revision No. 1789 of 2010 (O&M) 3 sold to Amrik Chand and the alleged sale deed was fake. It is stated that the premises was rented out to the tenant in the year 1971 at the rate of Rs.125/- per month, excluding water and electricity charges, by Kewal Krishan. Amrik Chand and his wife Parkash Rani had purchased the same from Hari Krishan who owned 70% share of the property, whereas Kewal Krishan owned 30% of property. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh, after conclusion of the pleadings, had formulated the following issues:- “1. Whether petitioner requires the premises in question for bonafide necessity? OPP. 2. Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment on account of non payment of rent? OPP. 3. What is rate of rent? OPA. 4. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPD. 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable in this form? OPD. 6. Relief”. The landlord examined Rajinder Sehgal, Junior Assistant, Estate Office, Chandigarh, Gurmukh Singh, Registration Clerk, Office of the Sub Registrar, Chandigarh, Amrik Chand, Vijay Arora and Parkash Rani. The respondent/tenant himself appeared as RW.1 and tendered into evidence a copy of statement made by Hari Krishan as Ex.R2. The petitioner/tenant, before the Rent Controller, had not Civil Revision No. 1789 of 2010 (O&M) 4 disputed the sale deed Ex.P4. The tenant admitted that Kewal Krishan was only having 30% share in the house. The Rent Controller held that since the petitioner/tenant himself had admitted respondents to be owners of House No. 1467, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh, to the extent of 70%, therefore, it stood concluded that the respondents were owners to that extent in the property, whereas Kewal Krishan was the owner to the extent of 30%. From this, it was inferred that the relationship of landlord and tenant stood established. The Rent Controller also accepted the contention, advanced by the respondent/landlords that Amrik Chand was having two married sons and their children are also residing with them on the ground floor of the house, therefore, second floor was also required to satisfy the needs of the family. The Rent Controller, gave the following findings:- “...From the evidence led by the petitioner on record as well as facts admitted by the respondent, it is clear that the petitioner has expired but the petitioner has left behind his wife, two sons Rajiv and Vijay who are married and having children. The accommodation on the ground floor is only 3-4 rooms and the demised premises. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that 3-4 rooms are not sufficient to accommodate Parkash Rani, his two married sons, their member of the family. Therefore, it is proved that the petitioner requires the demised premises for their personal use and occupation. As such this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner Civil Revision No. 1789 of 2010 (O&M) 5 and against the respondent”. The Rent Controller further held that since no witness was examined from the locality by the landlord qua rate of rent prevailing, therefore, the contention of the tenant that rent was Rs.125/- per month, was accepted. However, the Rent Controller held that even the rent of Rs.125/- per month has not been paid w.e.f. 29.9.2003 and therefore, the petitioner/tenant was held to be in arrears of rent . Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner/tenant filed an appeal. Before the Appellate Authority, the plea of the tenant that the rent was paid and accepted by the landlord, was upheld. The Appellate Authority held that it was a mistake of fact on the part of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority, regarding rent, held as under:- “...This Appellate Authority has considered this contention but it sans substance. It is a mistake of fact. The rent was deposited in connected Rent Application No. 30 of 2008 between the same parties and rent was tendered and accepted on 2.5.2008. This fact neither brought to the notice of learned Rent Controller by the appellants or by the respondents. As no rent was paid or deposited in the instant case, therefore, learned Rent Controller has returned the findings against the tenant. During the appeal, the landlords have suffered statement that in connected Rent Application No. 30 of 2008 rent has been received from 29.9.2003 to 31.5.2008 and they have already withdrawn the ground of non Civil Revision No. 1789 of 2010 (O&M) 6 payment of rent against the appellant. In this view of the matter, the ground of non payment of rent comes to an end”. However, the Appellate Authority further concurred with the finding of the Rent Controller that the premises is required by the landlord for his personal necessity. Mr. D.S. Marwaha, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the house consists of 7½ marlas (187.50 sq. yards). The accommodation consists of ground floor, first floor and the top floor. It is an admitted fact that from Kewal Krishan, Hari Krishan became owner of 70% of the property, which in turn was sold to Amrik Chand. Mr.Marwaha further submitted that Kewal Krishan was residing on the first floor. If that is so, naturally the respondent/landlords will become owner of the ground floor and top floor. The ground floor consists of three/four rooms. It has come in evidence that two married sons of Amrik Chand are residing in the house along with their children. Therefore, the need of the family has been rightly adjudicated upon by both the Courts below that they required top floor of the demised premises also. Therefore, the ground of personal necessity has been rightly accepted by both the Courts below. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 23, 2010 “DK”