Civil Revision No.3783 of 2009(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3783 of 2009(O & M) Date of Decision:06.09.2011 Balbir Singh ....petitioner Versus Ram Kumar(died)through LRs .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Siddharth Batra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate for the respondent *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned dated 23.05.2007 passed by Rent Controller, Bahadurgarh, ordering his eviction from the demised premises and the judgment dated 11.05.2009 dismissing his appeal by the Appellate Authority,Jhajjar. The respondent-landlord filed an ejectment application against the petitioner on the ground that he has not paid rent since June 2000 till date of filing of the petition, and required disputed premises for his personal necessity and that the petitioner had ceased to occupy the premises since the month of June 1999. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondent required the premises in question for his personal necessity and the tenant petitioner had ceased to occupy the same for the last more than 7 years Civil Revision No.3783 of 2009(O & M) 2 and, hence, the petitioner was liable to be ejected on these grounds. It may also be noticed that during the course of arguments before the Rent Controller, the petitioner had relied upon a compromise dated 29.11.2006 but signed on 13.01.2007 (copy placed on record before this Court as Annexure P-1) to contend that in view of the aforesaid mutual compromise, petitioner was not liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute. However, the respondent-landlord had denied any such compromise. An objection was also raised regarding the admissibility of the said compromise as the same was a photo copy and was not duly proved on record. Feeling aggrieved from the order of eviction passed by Rent Controller, Bahadurgarh, petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner moved an application seeking permission for leading additional evidence by way of placing on record the alleged compromise Ex. R-1, which was allowed vide order dated 30.03.2009 and the petitioner was allowed to place on record the original compromise Ex.R-1. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application to examine handwriting expert and other witnesses to prove aforesaid document/compromise Ex.R-1. The said prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Authority, Jhajjar, vide its order dated 05.05.2009. The order dated 05.05.2009 reads as follows: Vide my order dt. 30.03.09, the application moved by learned counsel for applicant for additional evidence was duly allowed and document Ex. R-1 which has not been relied by learned Trial Court was allowed to produce by way of additional evidence. Today, learned counsel for appellant Civil Revision No.3783 of 2009(O & M) 3 wants to examine Expert and other witnesses to prove document Ex. R-1 but in the application, moved by learned counsel for applicant for additional evidence no such plea has been made and only the plea of producing the original document Ex. R-1 was made, which was duly allowed. Today, learned counsel for applicant has tendered the document Ex. R-1 i.e. the original copy of Compromise but learned counsel for appellant cannot be allowed to examine other witnesses to prove this document as no such plea has been made by him at the time of filing the application of additional evidence and hence his prayer is turned down. Learned counsel has refused to close his evidence, therefore, Court has no other option except to close the evidence by court order as the case pertains to the year of 2007. Now the case is adjourned to 11.05.09 for arguments. It is also relevant to mention that the Appellate Authority, Jhajjar, while dismissing the appeal also observed that the compromise Ex.R-1 cannot be taken into consideration as the same could not be proved by the petitioner in accordance with law and moreover the same was beyond pleadings. The relevant observations of the Appellate Authority, Jhajjar, read as follows: From the rival contentions of both the parties, I am of the considered view that there is no need to interfere in the judgment passed by the Rent Controller. The relationship of the landlord and tenant Civil Revision No.3783 of 2009(O & M) 4 between the appellant and respondent is not under disputed. Respondent/petitioner himself appeared in the witness-box as PW1 and deposed on oath about his personal necessity of the shop for running a kiryana shop. PW2 Mohan Singh also corroborated the testimony of PW1 Ram Kumar. In support of his plea that there is no sweet shop in the demised premises, respondent/petitioner examined one Partap Singh LDC as PW4 who proved on record copy of ledger as EX. PW4/1, whereby the electricity connection of the said premises had been disconnected in the month of March, 2000 due to non-payment of bills amounting to Rs. 19,584/-. Thus adverse inference is drawn against the appellant/respondent. On the other hand, appellant/respondent has failed to prove his plea by oral as well as documentary evidence to the effect that respondent/petitioner Ram Kumar has two other shops in the locality of Sainipura in front of his residence and that he is a driver by profession and he has no experience of running a kiryana shop. Further, he has failed to produce any book of account regarding his sweet shop in the demised premises. Further, as per the pleadings of the petition, the tenancy of the respondent/petitioner on the disputed premises allegedly started in the year 1996-97 and the compromise is shown to be effected between the parties on 13.1.2007, which is beyond pleadings. It is settled law that evidence beyond pleadings are inadmissible in evidence, hence, in view of the above, Civil Revision No.3783 of 2009(O & M) 5 the compromise Ex. R1 is not taken into count. Here it is also pertinent to mention here that no permission for leading secondary evidence has been taken before trial Court for proving compromise. Moreover, the bona fide requirement of the respondent/petitioner is proved by oral as well as documentary evidence on the record as he required the demised shop for his own use and he has no other shop for running his kiryana business and regarding which he has specifically mentioned in para No. 9(b) of his petition that he is not having any other building except the demised premises in the Municipal area of Bahadurgarh. In case titled Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) by LRs Vs. Chaganlal Sundarji and Co., 2000 HRR, 8, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has very specifically held that the bona fide requirement of the land lord does not mean that there should be dire and compelling requirement of premises. Where the land lord was near to lose his job on account of lock out of employer company and he wanted to start a grocery business in the demised shop to earn his livelihood, it was not necessary to prove that landlord had reached the point of starvation. Nor it was necessary to prove that he had arranged the money necessary for starting his business. Further, the case titled as Ram Saran Vs. Gobind Sharma and ors., 2003, HRR, 620, wherein our own Hon'ble High Court has held that in case under Section 13 (3)(a)(i) of the Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 – Bona fide necessity-Landlord's family consisting of 18 family Civil Revision No.3783 of 2009(O & M) 6 members and accommodation with the family highly insufficient and their need found to be genuine by the courts below with a concurrent findings and moreover, a landlord is the best judge to determine his need of accommodation and eviction on the ground of personal requirement upheld. Also there is no dispute with the ratio of law as cited by counsel for the appellant/respondent but in view of the above, the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present petition. Before this Court also, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the aforesaid mutual compromise arrived at between the parties on 29.11.2006 but signed on 13.01.2007 (Ex. R-1) attached with this peittion as Annexure P-1. To prove the factum that the parties have entered into a compromise, petitioner by way of C.M. No. 12468-CII of 2011 has sought to place on record an order dated 27.11.2006 passed in a petition under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban(Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. However, from the perusal of the aforesaid order, the factum of the mutual agreement as pleaded before this Court is not made out. The aforesaid order is dated 27.11.2006, whereas the compromise deed arrived at on 29.11.2006 relied upon by the petitioner is signed on 13.01.2007. Not only this, the aforesaid compromise deed relied upon by the petitioner also does not talk of the order dated 27.11.2006 passed between the parties in Rent Application No.5/2/13.11.2003. A perusal of the photo copy of the mutual compromise deed would further show that though the same is alleged to be executed on 29.11.2006 between the parties, but the same has been alleged to be signed by the parties on 13.01.2007. Moreover, the order dated 05.05.2009 passed by the Civil Revision No.3783 of 2009(O & M) 7 Appellate Authority, rejecting his prayer to prove the said document by producing expert witness, was not challenged by the petitioner. Even, in the instant revision petition, no such ground has been taken to support his case to set aside the eviction order against him. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the submissions made before this Court and the instant revision petition has no merit. No other point has been argued. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 06.09.2011 neenu