C.R.No.7541 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.RNo.7541 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.12.2011 Pirthvi Singh Ravish .....Petitioner. vs. Mrs.Poonam Behl and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate, with Mr.H.S.Bhullar, Advoate, for the petitioner. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 23.7.2010 of Rent controller Panchkula ordering the eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises and the judgment dated 19.10.2011 of the Appellate authority Panchkula, dismissing the appeal against the said order of eviction. In brief, the respondents who are the owners/landlords of House No.44 Sector-12,Panchkula, filed an ejectment petition for the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the premises in dispute submitting that initially in the previous litigation the petitioner-tenant had taken a plea that he is tenant in the premises in dispute, at a monthly rent of Rs.500/- under the respondents and in the judgment dated 31.1.2007, it was held that the petitioner was a tenant. Thus, petition under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction)Act, 1973, was filed on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent with effect from October 1992 at the rate of Rs.500/- per month and that the premises in dispute was required by the respondents for their own use and occupation, as the respondent Pawan C.R.No.7541 of 2011 2 Chand Behl who retired on 29.2.2008 from a company in Kuwait was interested to settle at Panchkula and reside in his own house. They also wanted to construct full house so as to live comfortable life, and it was convenient for them to reside in the portion already constructed and thereafter construct the remaining portion of the house. It was further alleged by the respondents that they are not occupying any other building in the urban area and have not vacated the same at any time. Upon notice, petitioner filed written statement alleging that tenancy between the parties had come to an end and there was no relationship between them as landlords and tenant. It was further alleged that he had paid the rent of the tenancy period and the need shown by the respondents to occupy the premises in dispute was merely an eye wash. It was also averred that the respondents have concealed the fact that they were the owners of House No.909 Sector-3,Panchkula and thus since the respondents have concealed the material facts from the Court, the petition was liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:- 1. Whether the respondent has failed to pay the rent as claimed by the petitioners and therefore, he is liable to be evicted from the demised premises ?OPP 2. Whether the petitioners require the tenanted premises for their use and occupation ?OPP 3. Whether petitioners are estopped from filing the petition by their own act and conduct ?OPR 4. Whether the petitioners have concealed true and material facts from the Court ?OPR 5. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary C.R.No.7541 of 2011 3 parties ?OPR 6. Relief. After the considering the evidence and on hearing both the parties, the Rent Controller decided issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the respondents. Issues No. 3 to 5 were decided against the petitioner and consequently the ejectment petition was accepted vide order dated 23.7.2010. The instant rent petition was filed on 2.5.2007. It may be noticed at this stage that assessment of the provisional rent was made by the Rent Controller on 18.12.2008 at the rate of Rs.500/- per month for the period 1.3.2004 to 30.4.2007. The provisional rent assessed by the Court was not tendered by the petitioner on the ground that he had already made payment upto 31.12.2008. However, the petitioner failed to prove the alleged payment of rent , neither he stepped into the witness box to state on oath that he has already made payment of rent upto 31.12.2008. Thus, the Rent Controller held that petitioner was liable to be evicted on the ground of non payment of rent. With regard to the bona fide requirement respondent No.2 Pawan Chand Behl while appearing in the witness box deposed that they required the tenanted premises for their own use and occupation as they wanted to settle at Panchkula after ending his employment from Kuwait and they intended to get the full house constructed for comfortable living and they have got the plan sanctioned from HUDA and are not having any other building in the urban area of Panchkula. The Rent Controller found that there was no rebuttal to the aforesaid evidence brought on record by the landlord and thus it was also held that the respondents required the C.R.No.7541 of 2011 4 premises in dispute for their bona fide necessity. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority upholding the findings of the Rent Controller. Before this Court also, learned counsel for the petitioner could not raise any meaningful argument to challenge the findings of the Courts below except that the petitioner was not having any other house to live and his son is appearing in 10+2 and his final examination are to be held in April 2012. At the asking of the Court, counsel for the respondents had agreed to allow the petitioner to continue in the demised premises till the examination of his son subject to payment of arrears of rent, however, on instructions from petitioner, who is present in Court, counsel for the petitioner showed his inability to pay the arrears of rent. Thus, in view of the aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that petitioner cannot be even shown any indulgence for granting time to hand over the vacant possession. In view of the aforesaid, I find no ground for interference in the petition and the same is dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge December 13, 2011 rk