IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7439 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.12.2011 Rajinder Kumar -----Petitioner Vs. Tarawati & others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Ms. Neena Madan, Advocate for the petitioner. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority, Yamuna Nagar dated 27.7.2011, whereby eviction of the petitioner has been ordered from the demised premises while accepting the appeal of the respondent-landlords filed against the order dated 2.6.2008 of the Rent Controller, rejecting the ejectment application. 2. The brief facts emerging out of the impugned order are that the respondent-landlords filed ejectment application against the petitioner-tenant for his ejectment from the demised shop, making averments that Shri Ram Nath (the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents) had let out the shop in question to C.R. No.7439 of 2011 the petitioner at a monthly rent of `1,200/- per month besides house tax. It was further averred that in an earlier ejectment application which was filed for ejectment of the petitioner, on the ground of non-payment of rent, the Controller had held that the rate of rent was `600/- per month and the rent was tendered in Court till 30.4.2006. The matter with regard to rate of interest was sub judice. In the instant ejectment petition, eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and personal necessity. The ground of personal necessity was set up in the follow manner:- ‘The shop in dispute was required by the landlords for their personal use and occupation. It was averred that the respondent/landlords were residing in two rooms which were situated at the back of the shop in dispute. They had installed their fodder cutting machine in the shop was adjoining the shop in dispute. They were already running a rice sheller and a flour mill on the rear side of the shops and in front of their house. It was averred that the respondent/ landlord no.2 & 3 were married, having their children. The landlords had only two residential rooms in their possession. It was averred that now they want to shift their flour mill and rice sheller in the shop in dispute.’ 3. In the written statement, the petitioner admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, it was denied that he was in arrears of rent. It was averred that 2 C.R. No.7439 of 2011 the petitioner had already deposited the arrears of rent @ `600/- per month. The other ground of personal necessity for eviction was also denied and it was averred that the respondents were having sufficient property to run their business and shop in dispute was not required by them at all. No replication was filed. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- “1) Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the grounds taken in the petition? OPP 2) Whether the petition is false and frivolous? OPP 3) Relief.” 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition. Aggrieved against the said order of the Rent Controller, the respondent-landlord filed appeal before the Appellate Authority which was accepted vide impugned judgment dated 27.7.2011 on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent-landlords. While reversing the judgment of the Rent Controller, the lower Appellate Authority observed as under:- “14. Coming to the facts of the present case, it has been averred by the appellants/landlord that they were ten members of the family, they were residing behind the shop in dispute and were running a Toka Machine, rice sheller and a flour mill in their premises. It has been averred that the Toka Machine was installed in the shop that was adjoining the shop in dispute and the flour mill and rice sheller were 3 C.R. No.7439 of 2011 installed behind the shop in dispute towards the South. It had also been averred that Jagir Chand and Shish Kumar were married and were having children and that they had only two residential rooms in their occupation which were insufficient for their needs. It has further been averred that they had also been running a dairy from the premises and they required the shop in dispute since they wanted to shift the flour mill and the rice sheller in the shop in dispute. In the written statement, it was denied that there was any Toka Machine, rice sheller or the flour mill. It was, however, admitted that the appellants/landlord were living behind the shop in dispute. The appellants/ landlord filed the sit plan Ex.A1. No site plan showing anything contrary to that shown in Ex.A1 was produced. While appearing as RW2 Rajinder Kumar admitted that the appellants were running a rice sheller and a flour mill. The other witness RW1 Rajbir also did not inspire any confidence. The learned Rent Controller went wrong in holding that the landlords could not shift the business in the shop in dispute because it was small in size. The learned Rent Controller further erred in holding that it had come in the cross examination of Jagir Chand that they had installed a fodder cutting machine in the adjoining shop which meant that the same was not being used for any business and therefore, they could shift their rice sheller in that shop and could install the fodder cutting machine behind the shop. The learned Rent Controller, still further, erred in holding that the landlords could have constructed a shop in the vacant portion which was lying with them. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Rent Controller did 4 C.R. No.7439 of 2011 not consider the settled principles of law at all. It was not for the tenant or the court to deuce that the shop in dispute was small and therefore, they could not do their business there or that they could do their business in the adjoining shop or that they could have constructed another shop. As held earlier, it was the landlord to decide where they had to do their business. When such a huge family is living in two rooms and earning its livelihood by running different kind of business from the same premises, then their need for another portion would be most bonafide. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon cases M/S Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. versus Vimalabhai Prabhulal & others (supra), Surinder Chopra versus Harbans Kaur (supra), Rasi Silk, by its partner, K. Arunachalam versus Rasi Silk T.A. Venkatachalam and 8 others (supra) and Parkash Ram versus Yashpal Sharma (supra). This court has therefore, no hesitation in holding that the appellants/ tenant have been able to prove that they required the shop in dispute for their personal and bonafide necessity.” 5. Challenging the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that from the evidence on record, the bona fide need of the respondent-landlords is not proved at all, as admittedly sufficient open space is lying vacant and the respondent- landlords can very well expand their business by making construction thereon. Not only this, the respondent-landlords 5 C.R. No.7439 of 2011 were in possession of the adjoining shop which could be used for any business therein. More so, the respondents have also failed to prove on record that they are a large family and they require more space. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, sufficient accommodation is available with the respondents and thus, the bona fide need for personal requirement as set up was absolutely not existent and thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment. 7. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that despite having denied the fact in the pleadings regarding installation of fodder cutting machine, flour mill and rice sheller by the respondent-landlords, the petitioner while appearing as RW-2 has admitted the fact that the respondents were running a rice sheller and flour mill. It was further admitted that the respondents were living behind the shop in dispute with their families. The site plan produced on record as Ex.A1 is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the adjoining shop in possession of the respondent-landlords is also being used by them, though according to the petitioners, the said shop is being used as a store. In view of the aforesaid facts and the evidence on record to prove the fact that the respondent-landlords want to expand their business and that the shop was required for the said purpose, no fault can be found in the findings as recorded. It is 6 C.R. No.7439 of 2011 well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and the tenant cannot dictate his terms and conditions with regard to the suitability and use in a particular manner of the accommodation in landlords’ possession. Even otherwise, the finding recorded about personal necessity of the landlords is essentially a finding of fact. From the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the said finding is perverse or is based upon misreading or misinterpretation of law. 8. Thus, I find no merit in this revision petition. 9. Dismissed. December 02, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 7