Civil Revision No.6001 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6001 of 2007 Date of decision: November 19, 2010. Rattan Chand Sharma ...Petitioner(s) v. Kanwarjit Singh & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri C.B. Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri Gurjit Singh Bawa, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Kanwarjit Singh, an NRI, respondent-landlord instituted an eviction petition against Rattan Chand Sharma, petitioner-tenant and Smt. Harjit Kaur and Mohinder Singh Sidhu alias Monty. It was pleaded that the respondent-landlord is an NRI. He is settled in England and is running Air Line catering at Heathro Airport, London. It was further pleaded that the landlord left India in 1979 and since then he is settled there. The landlord further stated in the eviction petition that he is in possession of the property bearing No.B.XX-121, Prem Nagar, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana and he has also become owner of the demised shop by way of oral family settlement dated 1.6.1983 which was confirmed by the Civil Court vide its decree dated 12.6.1985. Case of the respondent-landlord was that the petitioner Civil Revision No.6001 of 2007 -: 2 :- Rattan Chand Sharma was inducted as tenant @ Rs.800/- per month with effect from 1.12.1985 for running Kiryana and general store (grocery shop). The landlord further averred that his parents have become old, they are ailing and suffering from various diseases, therefore, he he has decided to settle in India and start a catering business. For causing eviction of the petitioner, following grounds were pleaded:- (a) landlord intends to return to India for starting his own business to look after his parents in old age and for running business, therefore, shop which is in the non-residential building is required; (b) that tenant is in arrears of rent since 1st November, 2003; (c) that tenant has caused material alterations, additions in the shop in dispute without the written consent of the landlord due to which value and utility of the property has impaired. Lastly, it was stated that the premises has been sub-let by the petitioner-tenant to one Mrs. Harjit Kaur for running a PCO and to one Mohinder Singh Sidhu alias Monty for carrying the business of photostat. The petition was instituted under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949. Notice of the petition was issued. The tenant caused appearance and sought leave to contest. The Rent Controller vide order Annexure P-1 dated 8.8.2005 granted leave to contest. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were drawn:- “1. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected from property in question as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the present petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR Civil Revision No.6001 of 2007 -: 3 :- 3. Relief.” Father of the landlord Harbant Singh appeared as PW1; landlord himself appeared as PW2 and also examined Kishan Anand as PW3. The petitioner-tenant Rattan Chand appeared as RW1 and one Simranjit Singh was examined as RW2. Krishan Anand PW3 was a draftsman. He proved site plan Ex.P6. He also proved another site plan Ex.P7 which was prepared by him after he visited the site. The petitioner- tenant tendered another site plan as Ex.R1. According to the tenant, site plan Ex.R1 reflected true depiction of the property. Shri C.B. Goel, Counsel for the petitioner, has stated that the Rent Controller accepted only the ground of personal necessity. Mrs. Harjit Kaur and Mohinder Singh Sidhu alias Monty were given up on 23.8.2008. This Court need not to go into the re-appraisal and re-appreciation of the evidence as Shri Goel, Counsel for the petitioner, has made only following submissions:- (i) that during the pendency of the eviction petition, Ashok Kumar brother of one Vijay Kumar had vacated the shop which was let out to one Gupreet Singh. It is stated that the shop was earlier rented out to Ashok Kumar @ Rs.800/- but was presumably let out to Gupreet Singh at enhanced rate of Rs.2,000/-; (ii) that the shop vacated by Vijay Kumar is lying vacated. It is, thus, stated that the ground of personal necessity is not proved, rather, the same is a made-up affair to enhance the rent. It is further submitted that even the petitioner-tenant is willing and ready to increase the rent suitably. To controvert this submission, Shri Bawa, Counsel appearing Civil Revision No.6001 of 2007 -: 4 :- for the respondent-landlord, has drawn my attention to the following portion of the impugned order, whereby leave to contest was granted:- “... It was admitted that shop No.2 was vacated by Ashok Kumar voluntarily and had been let out to Gurpreet Singh with a further reply that Gurpreet Singh had assured him that he shall vacate shop (No.2) as and when Vijay Kumar and Rattan Chand shall do so...” Shri Bawa has further stated that he has instructions to state at the Bar that as and when petitioner hands over the possession of the shop, Gurpreet Singh will vacate the premises. Shri Bawa has further stated that right from the beginning, it is the case of the respondent-landlord that all the shops are required and they are to be converted into one big Mall for running the catering business. It is stated that since leave to contest was granted in the year 2005 and a period of five years is going to elapse, it makes no sense to the landlord to keep the shop vacant. Therefore, it was prudent for the landlord to utilize the shop for the time being so that some fruits of the property could accrue to the respondent-landlord. Since respondent-landlord has taken a definite stand at the commencement of the litigation and at the very initial stage that the shop was temporarily let out to Gurpreet Singh and he will hand over the possession of the same as and when shop is vacated by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that all the three shops constitute one composite building and, therefore, all the three shops are required by the landlord, petitioner is bound to vacate the shop in compliance with the order passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition which is hereby Civil Revision No.6001 of 2007 -: 5 :- dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted two months time to hand over actual peaceful vacant physical possession of the demised shop to the respondent-landlord. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] November 19, 2010. Judge kadyan