C.R. No. 3885 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3885 of 2008 Date of Decision: 12.08.2010 Prem Chand .... Petitioner Versus Shanti Devi and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present :- Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sharan Sethi, Advocate for the respondents 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 28.7.2007 passed by learned Rent Controller, Panchkula as well as judgment and order dated 5.6.2008 passed by Appellate Authority, Panchkula thereby allowing the eviction petition filed by landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord. 2. In nutshell brief facts of the present case inter alia are that landlord has purchased the disputed shop vide sale deed dated 24.12.2001 through the tenant-petitioner herein from its previous owner by way of paying tenant-petitioner the goodwill amount of the business run by the tenant-petitioner to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- on 7.12.2001 on the assurance that tenant-petitioner would vacate the C.R. No. 3885 of 2008 2 said shop but later on tenant-petitioner resiled from his assurance and with a malafide intention refused to vacate the disputed shop and also refused to return the goodwill amount so received by him. Landlord has, however, asserted in the eviction petition that tenant has not paid rent to the landlord w.e.f. 24.12.2001 i.e. from the date of purchase of the disputed shop; disputed shop had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation being in a dilapidated condition having been constructed more than 50 years old and the disputed shop was bonafidely needed for personal use of petitioner and for their family members as husband of the landlord had been doing the business in the adjoining shop where the space and place available with him was quite short and meager as per need of the business; landlord would convert it into the big showroom and will start business therein. 3. Learned Rent Controller vide order dated 28.7.2007 has held that need set up by the landlord is genuine and bonafide and landlord requires demised shop for personal use and occupation. It has further been held by learned Rent Controller that area available with the landlord is not sufficient and need as set up by the landlord is well established. 4. Appellate Authority in the impugned order dated 5.6.2008 has also agreed with the findings of the learned Rent Controller and has recorded that landlord's need is genuine, bonafide and pressing. It is further held by Appellate Court that landlord has successfully proved that demised shop is required by the landlord to reconstruct for the need of his business and their family members. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant vehemently C.R. No. 3885 of 2008 3 argued that landlord has not submitted any site plan to show that what is the area at present in the possession of the landlord and what construction he proposed to raise on the plot after getting the shop in question vacated. As per learned counsel for the petitioner in the absence of site plan need of the landlord can not be said to be genuine and bonafide. 6. Learned counsel for the landlord has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Muni Lal vs. M/s. Yashpal Rai Parshotam Lal Soni, reported in 1993(1) P.L.R 323. Learned counsel for the landlord further argued that landlord has not pleaded and proved ingredients of Section 13(1) of the Act. In Muni Lal case (supra) learned Single Judge of this Court in paragraph No. 11 has held as under:- “ There is no clear evidence on the record with regard to the accommodation in possession of the landlord. In the absence of the plan of the whole of the house and that of portion in occupation of the landlord it is not possible to give any clear findings as to whether the landlord required the demised premises for his personal use. Hence it cannot be said that the premises already in his possession were not reasonably sufficient for his needs. In holding the above view I am fortified by the ratio laid down in Mohan Lal Jain v. Mohan Lal and another, 1973 RCR 380; 1973 PLR 350. In view of the above discussion no fault can be found with the finding of the Appellate Authority returned on issue No. 3 in so far as he has reversed the finding of the learned Rent C.R. No. 3885 of 2008 4 Controller.” 7. I have carefully perused the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Muni Lal (supra). In the case of Muni Lal (supra) landlord was seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that landlord is already occupying 8 or 9 rooms and all the rooms available with the landlord are not sufficient to cater need of 20 family members of the landlord. In view of this learned Single Judge has held that without actual site plan to show what is the actual area and floors in possession of the landlord need of the landlord can not be judged, while in the case in hand eviction is sought from the shop saying husband of the landlord is doing business in the adjacent shop and after getting the shop in question vacated it would be demolished and reconstructed. Hence, facts are altogether different. Judgment of this Court in the case of Muni Lal (supra) has no application in the present case. 8. In the opinion of this Court both the Courts below correctly recorded the concurrent finding of the fact that landlord could establish his bonafide and genuine need and landlord requires demised shop for his personal use and occupation. 9. No interference is called for, hence, petition is dismissed. 10. However, two months time is granted to the tenant- petitioner to hand over the peaceful possession of the shop to the landlord. (ALOK SINGH) 12.08.2010 JUDGE reena