C.R No. 900 of 2004 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No. 900 of 2004 Date of decision : March 12, 2008 Gurcharan Singh ...... Petitioner through Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate v. Jatinder Singh, ...... Respondent through Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** RAJIVE BHALLA,J The petitioner impugns an order, dated 3.1.2004, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Faridkot, whereby the appeal, filed by the respondent, against the order, dated 7.5.1999, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Faridkot has been accepted, and the petitioner has been ordered to be ejected from the shop in dispute. The respondent-landlord filed a petition, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short herein after referred to as “the Act”), praying for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the shop in dispute on the grounds of bona fide personal necessity, non payment of rent, the premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, nuisance and that the petitioner had impaired the value and utility of the building. C.R No. 900 of 2004 ::2:: The petitioner, by his written statement, contested the rate of rent, by denying that he was in arrears of rent, pleaded that the averments with respect to his materially impairing the value and utility of the building were incorrect and asserted that the plea of bona fide necessity was a mala fide attempt to seek his ejectment. The learned Rent Controller, after an appraisal of respective pleadings, framed the following issues :- “1. Whether the shop has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation ? OPA 2. Whether the respondent is guilty of nuisance? If so to what effect ? OPA 3. Whether the respondent committed such acts, which have impaired the value and utility of the shop materially ? OPA 4. Whether the respondent has made structural alterations in the demised shop without the sanction of the applicant ? OPA 5. What is the rate of rent of the demised premises ? OPP 6. Whether the respondent was also liable to pay house tax ? OPA 7. Whether the tender made in the court is legal and valid ? If so to what effect ? OPA 7-A. Whether the applicant bona fide requires the demised shop for his personal use and occupation ? OPA 8. Relief.” C.R No. 900 of 2004 ::3:: The respondent-land lord gave up issues No.1 to 4. The issue of non payment of rent/short tender, was decided in the petitioner's favour, as was the issue of bona fide personal necessity and consequently the ejectment petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned Rent Controller, the landlord-petitioner filed an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority, Faridkot allowed the appeal, set aside the aforementioned order and directed the petitioner's ejectment. Counsel for the petitioner urges that the evidence on record, and the findings returned by the learned Rent Controller have been wrongly reversed by the Appellate Authority. The evidence on record shows that in addition to the demised premises, the landlord owns a residential building at Clock Tower Road and is in possession of another shop taken on rent from the Municipal Committee. The landlord admitted that he stores his goods in the shop taken on rent from the Municipal Committee, and in his house. On these admitted facts, the learned Rent Controller held that the plea of necessity was a mere desire to occupy more space and in the absence of an element of need, the plea of bona fide necessity could not be accepted. The learned Appellate Authority, however, reversed the findings by accepting the landlord's plea of bona fide necessity. It is asserted that by admitting ownership and possession of other premises, the landlord has negatived his plea of bona fide necessity, as it is based upon insufficient space to conduct his business. The landlord's desire for a larger premises lacks an element of need, and should, therefore, have been rejected. It is, therefore, prayed that the revision petition be allowed and the order, passed by the Appellate Authority be set aside. C.R No. 900 of 2004 ::4:: Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the findings, returned by the learned Appellate Authority, are legal and valid and do not call for interference. It is argued that the Appellate Authority, after considering the evidence on record, held that the landlord's shop, which adjoins the petitioner's shop, cannot accommodate his goods and, as the landlord stores his goods at different places in the town, namely, a shop taken on rent from the Municipal Committee and in his own house, his plea of necessity was bona fide as it would enable him to demolish the intervening wall and increase the space, available for his business. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. As noticed herein above, the petitioner's ejectment has been ordered on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the respondent- landlord. The landlord specifically averred in the petition for ejectment that his firm M/S Sukhija Sanitary and Hardware Store sells sanitary ware in a shop, adjoining the demised premises. The shop in his possession is insufficient to accommodate his goods, and as he is facing an acute shortage of space, he has to store his goods in a shop taken on rent from the Municipal Committee and in his house in Talab Mohalla. In order to substantiate the aforementioned plea, the landlord has stepped into the witness box and deposed in support of these facts. The respondent deposed that his need for additional space is bona fide, as he has to store his goods in another shop taken on rent from the Municipal Committee and in his residential premises, situated in Talab Mohalla. The respondent placed on record site plans Exs. A1 to A7, and relied upon the statement of the Local Commissioner-AW2, and also his own oral deposition as AW-5. C.R No. 900 of 2004 ::5:: The facts, noticed herein above, are not denied by the petitioner but are infact, pressed into service to assert that as the landlord is in possession of sufficient space for storage of sanitary ware, his plea of bona fide necessity should not be accepted. The above contention cannot be accepted. The landlord's plea of bona fide necessity, as noticed herein above, flows from a bona fide assertion that his business suffers from acute shortage of space. The demised premises adjoin the shop occupied by the landlord and he, therefore, proposes to demolish the adjoining wall and enhance the space for his business. At present the landlord has to store his good at different places in the town namely in another shop taken on rent from the Municipal Committee and in a residential building. The shortage of space has compelled the respondent-landlord to use his house and another shop to store his goods. The fact that the landlord has to use his house to store his goods, a fact, not only admitted by the petitioner, but relied upon, is sufficient to establish the landlord's plea of bona fide necessity. A plea of bona fide necessity must disclose a significant element of need as distinguished from a mere desire. The “need” underlying the plea of bona fide necessity must be demonstrably bona fide. The landlord is the best judge of his requirement and, therefore, of his need and necessity. A tenant cannot dictate or supplant his own perception of “need” or necessity. Courts, however, would not abdicate their duty to examine whether the need and necessity alleged is indeed so or a mere ruse to seek ejectment. A landlord's need to expand his business premises so as to pursue his avocation effectively, if established by cogent evidence, is a valid ground for the tenant's ejectment. C.R No. 900 of 2004 ::6:: In the present case, the landlord has successfully established that his “need” is a “bona fide necessity” and not a mere desire or a wish. The landlord's shop adjoins the demised premises. The landlord's business is seriously impaired by insufficient space, as he has to store his goods at different places in the town. The learned Appellate Authority, therefore, rightly reversed the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, as the bona fide necessity stood established. I find no error, whether of jurisdiction or of law, as would require interference. The findings, recorded by the Appellate Authority, are clear and cogent and do not warrant interference. In view of what has been noticed herein above, and as the landlord has successfully established the ingredients of his bona fide necessity and as the findings of fact, returned by the learned Appellate Authority, do not merit interference, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) March 12th, 2008. JUDGE `kk'