IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3985 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.07.2009 Krishan Lal .....Petitioner versus Anil Kumar .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the eviction order dated 14.12.2005, passed by the Rent Controller, Sunam as well as against the order dated 15.4.2009 of the Appellate Authority, Sangrur, dismissing petitioner's appeal against the above said eviction order. The facts may be noticed briefly. C.R. No.3985 of 2009 (O&M) 2 The respondent-landlord filed the eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short `the Act'), seeking petitioner's eviction from the demised shop, inter-alia, on the ground of personal necessity. The respondent-landlord averred that he does not own or possess any other shop except the shop in dispute in Sunam; that he had been in the business of jewellery in the Himachal Pradesh but for the last three years, his mother Smt.Krishna Devi was suffering from heart ailment and was getting treatment from the Escort Heart Institute, New Delhi. Due to this reason, the respondent-landlord has started residing at Sunam to look after his old and ailing mother and he needs the shop in dispute to establish his business of jewellary at Sunam after reconstructing the same. The respondent-landlord also pleaded that the demised premises is in a dilapidated condition and is unfit and unsafe for human habitation as its roof is quite old and has developed cracks and is likely to fall at any time. The respondent-landlord also pleaded that the petitioner-tenant has carried out alterations after breaking the roof of the shop and without the permission of the landlord, thereby impairing the value and utility of the premises. Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant took various preliminary objections regarding non-maintainability of the eviction petition, locus standi, cause of action, estoppel etc. It was alleged that the respondent- landlord was already doing the business of jewellery in old Bazar, Sunam and/or that he has no intention to permanently settle at Sunam. C.R. No.3985 of 2009 (O&M) 3 On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the applicant required the shop in dispute for personal need and necessity? OPA 2. Whether the shop in dispute is not fit for human inhabitation and is liable to fall down? OPA 3. Whether respondent has committed such act as are likely to impair the value or utility of building? 4. Whether respondent is liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute? OPA. 5. Relief.” On fair consideration of the evidence on record regarding the alleged personal necessity of the landlord, the Rent Controller held as follows:- “...but after the perusal of oral as well as documentary evidence led by both the parties, it becomes crystal clear that counsel for the applicant is able to prove on file that shop in dispute is required for his personal necessity, by examining AW1 Anil Kumar AW3 Dr.Permanent and AW5 Jagan Singh Khipla, but counsel for the respondent is unable to prove on file that there is no shop exists in the name of applicant himself. He simply laid stress on the point that father of the applicant is having another shop in Sunam, but no evidence has come on file that applicant himself is having his own shop at Sunam. It hardly matters, if his father is having any shop at Sunam or not, but if applicant wants to start his business independently, then he must require independent shop for his personal use and it hardly matters that if the father of applicant and applicant are living in a joint family......” C.R. No.3985 of 2009 (O&M) 4 The landlord's plea that the shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation or that the value and utility of the shop has been materially impaired, however, did not find favour by the Rent Controller who passed the eviction order on the ground that the shop in dispute is required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation. The petitioner-tenant went in appeal, but the appeal has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Sangrur vide the impugned judgment dated 15.4.2009. It may be noticed here that one of the plea taken by the petitioner-tenant before the Rent Controller was that the respondent- landlord is already running the business of jewelry in the shop owned and possessed by his father. During the pendency of the present appeal, father of the respondent-landlord died and one of the arguments raised was that after his father has passed away, the respondent-landlord has inherited the shop occupied by his father and, therefore, the personal necessity qua the shop in dispute has disappeared. The said contention has been repelled by the Appellate Authority after observing that the respondent-landlord is only one of the legal heirs of his father and would inherit only nominal share in the joint property alongwith his brothers and sisters. The Appellate Authority further observed that the respondent-landlord has a right to run his business independently in his own shop. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that firstly the respondent-landlord is well settled in Himachal Pradesh and has not closed his business there and has no intention to start business at C.R. No.3985 of 2009 (O&M) 5 Sunam (Punjab); secondly, the shop which was in occupation of his father is lying vacant after his death and the respondent can start the business in that shop of which he is also a joint owner. He then urged that at present the mother of the respondent-landlord has gone to Himachal Pradesh alongwith him, therefore, also there is no compulsion for him to settle down at Sunam. Having heard counsel for the petitioner at some length and on perusal of the impugned orders, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The Courts below have concurrently held and rightly so that the respondent-landlord is well within his right to seek the petitioner's eviction from the single shop owned by him at Sunam, so as to start his business of jewelry in that shop. There is overwhelming evidence on record to prove that the mother of the respondent-landlord is not keeping well due to old age and heart ailment. The respondent-landlord has, therefore, a genuine cause to settle down at Sunam to look after his ailing mother especially when his father has passed away during the pendency of the eviction petition. The plea that the respondent-landlord's mother has now a days gone with him to Himachal Pradesh, simply strengthens the concern shown by the landlord for his mother. Independent thereof, nothing prohibits the respondent-landlord in laws to start his business of jewellery at Sunam also and the petitioner-tenant is nobody to guide him. It could not be disputed that the respondent-landlord is not the only legal heir of his father and has not inherited the shop owned by his deceased father exclusively. There is, thus, no alternative accommodation available with the C.R. No.3985 of 2009 (O&M) 6 respondent-landlord. In these circumstances, the present necessity shown by the respondent-landlord is bonafide and beyond any pale of doubt. There is no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. 20-07-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE