Civil Revision No. 1068 of 2009 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1068 of 2009 Date of decision : 25.3.2010 South Eastern Roadways ....Petitioner Versus Surender Mohan Ahuja and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. D.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for the respondents S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-tenant is in revision against the affirmative finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority directing its ejectment from the tenanted premises on a finding that the respondent-landlord require the premises aforementioned for personal bonafide necessity. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner- tenant that the want of bonafides in the conduct of respondent- landlord is evident from the fact that certain other property owned by the latter in that very urban area had been sold off in the recent past. If the respondent-landlord required the premies in that urban area for personal bonafide necessity, the argument proceeds, there is no reason why he would have sold off that property in recent past. The plea merely deserves to be noticed to be discarded. Civil Revision No. 1068 of 2009 -2- ***** The learned Appellate Authority recorded a finding of fact that the other three shops which were sold off by the respondent- landlord in 1991 and 1995 (this petition came to be filed on 23.4.2001) did not exclusively belong to him. That fact enabled the learned Appellate Authority to discard the relevant plea by further placing reliance upon Beant Lal Versus Radhey Sham, 2008 (2) H.R.R. 120. The relevant part of the finding is reproduced hereunder:- “27. Thus, what emerges from the evidence on record is that more than two years prior to the institution of the present petition, petitioner had sold some property to others in the same urban area. However, he was not the exclusive owner of that property. There is no evidence that he was occupying that property exclusively and so, it cannot be held that petitioner failed to comply the provisions of Haryana Rent Act. In Beant Lal Versus Radhey Sham, 2008 (2) H.R.R. 120, the landlord sought eviction of the tenant from non-residential building on the ground that landlord in occupation of other building had vacated the same without sufficient cause in as much as landlord had constructed three shops in 1982, which were sold in 1991 and 1995. In the appeal, the lower appellate authority upheld the view of learned Rent Controller. It was pleaded by the petitioner that building allegedly vacated by him was jointly owned alongwith other co- Civil Revision No. 1068 of 2009 -3- ***** sharers and so the expression, “ which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled” was not acceptable in the case. Upholding this contention, it was held by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that possession of a co-sharer in a joint family property does not dis-entitle him from seeking recovery of possession from a tenant of a non-residential building exclusively owned by him. The shops which were sold by the petitioner were not exclusively owned by him but were joint ownership and therefore, by sale of three shops, it could not be said that he had not satisfied the requirement of not vacating such building without sufficient cause. Setting aside the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and first appellate authority, Hon'ble High Court accepted the petition for ejectment. 28. Above cited authority is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case also, the property sold by the petitioner-landlord by way of Ex. R-7 and R-8 was not exclusively owned by him; whereas the demised property is exclusively owned by him and therefore, it is held that tenant cannot take any benefit of the fact that petitioner-landlord had sold some property alongwith other co-sharers prior to the institution of the present case.” Civil Revision No. 1068 of 2009 -4- ***** It is, then, argued on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that the projected need of the respondent-landlord is wishful in character inasmuch as his son, for whose purposes the respondent-landlord made a plea for eviction, is gainfully employed in Singapore. The plea raised is oblivious of the plethora of evidence available on record to the effect that the aforesaid son of the respondent-landlord, who had done his Master of Science in Chemical Engineering from the Texas Tech University, Lubbock (USA) is proved to have left his job in order to be with the parental family. It is, then, argued that vacant site measuring 23' X 106' owned by the respondent-landlord is available in the same urban area and there is no reason why the projected need cannot be fulfilled by utilisation thereof. There again, the petitioner-tenant does not appear to be on a firmer footing. There is clarificatory evidence available on the record to the effect that the vacant site aforementioned is not suitable for running of the projected business. As already noticed in an earlier part of the judgment, the indicated son of the respondent- landlord is duly qualified to run the projected business and there is no justification to grant allowance to the petitioner-tenant to dictate where exactly the projected business could be initiated. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the above land is equally suited for the projected business, we have to give it to the landlord to decide which property would he like to utilise for personal bonafide Civil Revision No. 1068 of 2009 -5- ***** necessity. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. In the circumstances of the case including the verbal presentation that petitioner tenant would require little extra while to locate alternative accommodation, the petitioner-tenant shall have six months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. March 25, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE