IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5724 of 2008 Date of decision: 22nd October, 2008 M/s Khanuja Sales Corporation … Petitioner Versus Mrs. Sharda Gupta … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. P.L. Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. M/s Khanuja Sales Corporation through its Sole Proprietor Sh.O.P. Khanuja, has preferred the present revision petition, aggrieved against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, who had reversed the judgment of Rent Controller and had ordered eviction of the petitioner – tenant on the ground of personal bonafide necessity. Sharda Gupta is owner and landlady of demised premises. Petitioner was tenant on the ground floor portion of the premises No.B-516, Nehru Ground, NIT Faridabad, which has been shown in red colour, in the site plan attached with the eviction petition. Landlady claimed that vide rent agreement dated 28th October, 1998, the demised premises was let out @ Rs.1932/- per month exclusive of electricity charges. The rent commenced from 01.01.1998. After expiry of 33 months, increase in the rent @ 25 percent was reduced into writing as per term No.3 of the rent agreement. According to the landlady, in July 2001, rent was enhanced from Rs.1932/- per month to Rs.2415/- per month. Cheques to this effect were issued for the months Civil Revision No.5724 of 2008 of July and August, 2001. On presentation of the cheques in Faridabad Branch of Bank of India, same were encashed. Landlady sought ejectment of the tenant on the following grounds: (i) Failure on the part of tenant to pay rent w.e.f. 01.09.2001 to 30.09.2001 @ Rs.2415 per month. The rent was payable in advance in the first week of each month. (ii) Premises were required for personal bonafide necessity, as son of the landlady, Shashank Gupta, after completion of Diploma in Software Engineering, intended to start computer training centre and also sale and service centre for computers in the demised premises. It was pleaded that the landlady along with the children was residing at the first and second floor of the premises, ground floor of which was let out to the tenant. Additionally, it was stated that ground floor is also needed because husband of the petitioner was idle for the last several months and was in search of a good business. It was also pleaded a necessary ingredient that the landlady was not occupying any other premises in the urban area concerned and she has not vacated any such premises after the commencement of the Act. (iii) On the ground of creating nuisance in shop and quarrels, eviction was sought. It was averred in the eviction petition that various requests made to tenant to hand over the possession were of no avail. Therefore, eviction petition has been filed. Notice was issued. Petitioner – tenant filed written statement, raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, 2 Civil Revision No.5724 of 2008 concealment of facts on the part of landlady and verification appended to the petition was not in consonance with the law. It was further submitted that the lease deed, being an unregistered document, which purportedly has created lease for 33 months, cannot be looked into, being inadmissible in evidence. On facts, averments of the ejectment petition were denied and it was stated that landlady was in possession of first, second and third floors of the building and therefore, the same can be used by the son of the petitioner for the purpose set out in the petition. It was stated that the total vacant area in the three stories of the building was approximately 1500 sq. feet. It was further stated that the portion in possession of the petitioner – tenant is of commercial nature and the tenant has been carrying on business of trading in iron and steel since February 1985, when tenancy was created at a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. It was stated that rent note dated 28th October, 1998 though signed by the tenant, is not a registered document. It was also stated that the rent was Rs.1932/- per month and not Rs.2415/- per month. Explanation regarding cheques was furnished and it was stated that son of the tenant had issued two cheques in the sum of Rs.2415/- and Rs.1449/- on 07.08.2001 and 11.08.2001 in favour of the petitioner, when husband of the petitioner came to collect rent for the month of August and September, 2001. It was denied that tenant was in arrears of rent. However, on appearance, to avoid eviction, as a matter of abundant caution, tenant had tendered rent @ Rs.2415/- for the month of September, 2001. It was stated that the version that the premises is required for own use and occupation by the son and husband of the petitioner is a concocted version, only to seek eviction. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were drawn by the Rent Controller: 3 Civil Revision No.5724 of 2008 1. Whether the respondent has failed to pay the rent to the petitioner, if so to what effect? OPP 2. Whether the premises in dispute required by the petitioner for his personal bonafide necessity? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present petition? OPD 5. Relief. Landlady herself appeared as PW-1 and proved documents Ex.P-1 to P-39. To corroborate her statement, her husband and son Rajinder Gupta and Shashank Gupta appeared as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. Clerk of the Bank, Shiv Dayal Singh was examined as PW-4. Tenant himself appeared as RW-1 and proved documents (Ex.R-1 to R-4). No rebuttal evidence was led. The Rent Controller held that the rent of the disputed premises was Rs.2415/- and non-registered rent note can be read for collateral purposes. Ground of non-payment of rent was not accepted. Argument of the landlady that she is aged about 60 years and wants the tenanted property for personal bonafide necessity of her son and husband was taken into consideration but it was held that the requirement of disputed premises for the son and husband of the petitioner is not at all established and the landlady was not entitled to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground that during pendency of the petition, landlady had shifted her residence in the first, second and third floor of the premises. Admission of PW-3 Shashank Gupta, son of the landlady in cross-examination that at the time of filing of the petition, first, second and third floors of the premises were lying vacant, 4 Civil Revision No.5724 of 2008 was construed against the landlady. Admission of the landlady that her family members were running another shops in the year 1995 in NIT area was also taken as a reason to deny personal necessity. Aggrieved against the decision of the Rent Controller, landlady had filed the appeal. The Appellate Authority held the rent to be Rs.2415/- per month and further held that the Rent Controller has rightly held that eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent is not tenable. However, the Appellate Authority discussed evidence threadbare regarding the personal necessity. The Appellate Authority below noticed the fact that ground floor and the first floors were having a constructed area of 600 sq. feet each, whereas second and third floors were having constructed area of 450 and 200 sq. feet respectively. It took into consideration that first, second and third floors of the premises were lying vacant when ejectment petition was filed on 11.09.2001. Noticing the plea of the tenant that the landlady had shifted her residence from H.No. 868, Sector 19 to the first, second and top floors in the year 2000, petition was amended. It held that subsequent event is not such, which will disentitle the landlady from seeking eviction of the tenant. Plea of the tenant that husband of the landlady had vacated the shop in year 1997, where he was running a cloth shop, was taken into consideration but at the same time, explanation that the premises were vacated because the landlord of the shop had issued threats was accepted. Son of the landlady was employed as a Computer Operator till 1999 and was without any regular job since 1999 and had also gone to England, were noticed. The Appellate Authority negated the arguments raised by the counsel for the tenant that the fact that in 1997, husband of the landlady had vacated the shop so occupied, first, second and third floor of the 5 Civil Revision No.5724 of 2008 demised premises vacant in year 2000 are sufficient to infer that the plea of personal necessity is not made out. The Appellate Authority stated that the explanation of the landlady that her husband was compelled to vacate the premises in 1997 and she was on a rented residential accommodation, therefore, she has to occupy first, second and third floor, were accepted to be genuine explanations. I have heard Mr.P.L. Goyal, counsel for the petitioner. During course of arguments, he has reiterated that the very fact that the first, second and third floor were lying vacant when the eviction petition was filed, shows that landlady was only interested in causing eviction of the petitioner and had no personal bonafide necessity. It was stated that landlady could have continued in the rented residential premises and her son could have started the business of computer training centre, repair and service centre on the first, second and third floor of the house. It was further urged that husband of the landlady is aged 65 years and the fact that he had vacated the shop, where he was running a cloth business, further reveals that the demised premises of the tenant is not required for bonafide need, but for causing eviction of the tenant. I am not impressed by the arguments raised by Mr.Goyal. A landlord is the best judge of his needs. Running a business at the ground floor by the son makes better sense and the argument that the landlady should have continued to reside in the rented premises is an argument of convenience, advanced by the tenant and may not be accepted. Convenience of the tenant and his hardship are not sufficient to deny the landlord to use the demised premises, which are required by him for his personal bonafide necessity. From evidence, it is made out that both, son and the husband of the landlady are dependants of the landlady. 6 Civil Revision No.5724 of 2008 Commencement of the business at the ground floor and the residence on the first, second and third floor are justifiable. I find that the findings returned by the Appellate Authority have been rightly returned, on facts of the case and law cited. Consequently, I affirm the findings given by the Appellate Authority and find no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 22, 2008 rps 7