Civil Revision No.6534of 2008 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6534 of 2008 (O & M) Date of decision 06.01.2009 State of Haryana and others .....Appellants versus Sh. M. S. Nagra and others .....Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. Deepak Jindal, AAG, Haryana. K. Kannan, J. 1. The tenant which is the State of Haryana assails the concurrent orders of eviction passed on the ground of the requirement of the landlord for own use and occupation. The landlord's contention was that the property was required for setting up an office of law firm in the premises. The Rent Controller upheld the contention of the landlord and ordered eviction on 2.4.2008. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 26.9.2008 affirming the decision of the Rent Controller. 2. The contention on behalf of the Government was that the landlord had no bona fide requirement and that would be seen from the fact that even after filing of the petition, the property at the second floor and third floor had fallen vacant and instead of occupying the property the petitioner had been pursuing the application for eviction of the tenant. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends further that the rent agreement provided for 3 months notice for termination and such notice had not been issued. 3. In order to succeed in the petition, the only requirement under Civil Revision No.6534of 2008 (O & M) -2- the relevant statute under Section 13(3)(i) is: a) he requires it for own use; b) he is not occupying another residential building in the urban area concerned; c) he has not vacated such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act in the said urban area; d)..........proviso................ 4. As regards the first contention that the landlord had obtained vacant possession of the building at second, third and the fourth floor, it cannot be a ground to test bonafides of the requirement of the landlord. That would amount to enabling the tenant to dictate to the landlord which property he shall occupy. It bears out in evidence that has also been rendered in the appellate Court's order that the landlord was willing to accommodate the tenant in possession of any other floor which had fallen vacant subsequently but the tenant was not prepared to take any other portion of the building. If a tenant must have a specific preference to the ground floor, afortiorari, the landlord shall also be entitled to insist a particular portion of the building as alone being required for personal occupation. The landlord may have his own reasons for the choice of the particular floor of the building, considering the fact that it is an evidence that they were planning to set up a law firm consisting of brothers and they may believe that access to the clients would be easy only if it is at the ground floor. The appellate Court has referred to several decisions of the Supreme Court where it has been pointed out that a tenant cannot plead that a landlord shall opt for only a particular portion of the building and insist on not vacating the premises, so long as it is not shown that at the time of the presentation of the petition the landlord had any other property in occupation. A landlord cannot be non-suited, except when a subsequent Civil Revision No.6534of 2008 (O & M) -3- event some other building had fallen vacant which was equally suitable that violated the statutory requirement as outlined above. 5. The counsel for the revision petitioner also contended that a family partition that has been brought about by the landlord makes it appear as though the different floors of the building had been allotted to other brothers and that the landlord had only been allotted the ground floor. This, according to him, shows the landlord's deliberate conduct to hoodwink the Court to accept his contention for the other hand, in my view, it is indeed non-issue, even if it had been contended that the family arrangement set up by the landlord referring to the allotment of the different portions of the building to other brothers were not true, the petitioner as landlord is entitled to secure eviction, so long as the requirement for establishing the law firm continued and that need is found to be not false. 6. It is also strenuously contended by the landlord that the three months notice had not been issued as was required to be done under the rental agreement. It has to be pointed out that the agreement that was executed on 31.1.1995 provided initially for a period of 5 years and the notice period must be understood as being operative only in existence where termination was sought even within the period of 5 years. Admittedly the 5 years period had expired. The tenant has continued as a statutory tenant. The provisions of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 shall be understood as overriding any other contractual obligation and eviction itself could be sought only on the grounds mentioned under Section 13. So considered, there is no necessity for issuance of notice under any of the provisions of the Rent Control Act. 7. The orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate Court are Civil Revision No.6534of 2008 (O & M) -4- well considered and there is no error as regards legality or propriety of the order to justify intervention in revision proceedings. The revision petition therefore fails and is dismissed. 8. The counsel for the petitioner states that the Government has established Employment Exchange at the demised premises and seeks for at least six months time for eviction. The plea is partially accepted and the tenant shall have five months from the date of the order for eviction. No costs. ( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE 06.01.2009 A. KAUNDAL