Civil Revision No.1875 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1875 of 2007 Date of decision: May 27, 2008. Shri Guran Ditta Ram ...Petitioner(s) v. Ved Parkash Khurania & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 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. Present: Shri A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rajinder Goel, Advocate, for the respondents NO.1 & 2. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition is at the instance of the tenant who is aggrieved at the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority, Kaithal, whereby on acceptance of the appeal preferred by the respondent- landlords, eviction order has been passed against the petitioner. The facts may be noticed briefly. The respondents, who are husband and wife, filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of the petitioner from a shop situated with the Civil Revision No.1875 of 2007 -: 2 :- municipal limits of Kaithal (in short the demised premises), on the grounds that:- (i) the petitioner-tenant has not paid the rent with effect from 1.4.2001; and (ii) the tenanted premises are required by the respondents for their personal use and occupation. Since the petitioner resisted the respondent's claim, the learned Rent Controller framed six issues including:- (i) as to whether the respondent is in arrears of rent with effect from 1.4.2001 onwards; and (ii) whether the disputed premises are required by the petitioners for their use and occupation? Besides his own statement, respondent No.1 (landlord) led documentary evidence comprising of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and also placed on record a photostat copy of the order dated 29.4.2004 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.4563 of 2004. The petitioner-tenant produced certified copy of the statement of respondent No.1-landlord recorded on 2.12.2005 in Civil Suit No.241 of 2001(Ex.R1). In addition, the son of the petitioner, namely, Surender Kumar entered the witness box as RW1. The Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Authority have concurrently held that since the entire arrears of rent, as assessed, were tendered by the petitioner on 3.9.2004, the first ground of eviction was no longer available to the respondent-landlords. So far as the main ground, namely, that the demised premises was required by the respondents for their personal use and occupation, the learned Rent Controller turned down the same after observing that the respondent-landlord is 70 years old and is not likely to start any new business, whereas his two sons, who are aged about 44 and 42 years, are already running separate shops of electronic goods and scooter agency. The Rent Controller further held that had there been any intention on the part of Civil Revision No.1875 of 2007 -: 3 :- the respondent-landlords to start any steel business, they would not have rented out another vacant shop to one Rameshwar Dass in the year 1994. The learned Rent Controller, thus, concluded that the alleged requirement of the respondents for the demised premises is a mere “desire” and not a 'bona fide necessity'. The eviction petition was accordingly dismissed. The respondent-landlords preferred an appeal which has since been accepted by the Appellate Authority vide its judgment and order dated 30.11.2006. While upholding the plea taken by the respondents that they require the demised premises to start the business of steel furniture, learned Appellate Authority has observed that the landlord is the best judge of his own requirement and he cannot be dictated by the tenant in this regard. The respondent-landlord though is aged about 70 years, however, he wants to start his own business as the old couple have got a feeling that their children treat them as a 'liability'. That respondent No.1 has sufficient means to start the business, for which purpose the adjoining small shop has also been got vacated, as in one shop he wants to run the business of sale of steel furniture whereas the adjoining one would be used as a workshop and for storage purposes. The learned Appellate Authority has, thus, concluded that the respondent-landlord has been able to prove that the demised premises is required for his “bona fide” personal necessity. Aggrieved, the tenant has preferred this revision petition, in which, while issuing notice of motion, records of the courts below were also summoned. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard; the impugned judgment has been perused and I have also gone through the records of the courts below. Civil Revision No.1875 of 2007 -: 4 :- Learned Counsel for the Petitioner-tenant has vehemently contended that since the adjoining shop is already lying vacant, the respondent-landlord can start the business in the same and his insistence to get the shop vacated from the petitioner simply suggests that he does not have any 'bona fide' personal necessity for the demised premises. It is argued that the respondent-landlord is more than 70 years old person whose sons are well settled in business, therefore, the so-called “personal necessity” is nothing more than a 'desire' to get the shop vacated and/or to enhance the rent. Learned counsel also relies upon the sale deeds, Annexures P-1 to P-5, appended along with an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC moved for leading additional evidence at this revisional stage and urges that the respondent-landlord has sold various shops at different points of time, therefore, his plea that he requires the shop in question for starting a new business, is totally false and an after-thought. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Respondent- landlords argues that the petitioner's claim, even if supported with the additional evidence sought to be produced by him, is totally contrary to the facts on record. He explains that the sale deeds (Annexures P-1 to P-5) are wholly irrelevant as the same were executed between the years 1997 to 2001 and each one of them pertains to either a constructed shop already occupied by a tenant or a vacant plot. He contends that no vacant shop has ever been sold by the respondent-landlord. He further argues that the adjoining shop has undoubtedly been got vacated by the respondent, however, the size of the said shop is 12'x15' and unless the demised premises is also made available, the business of steel furniture cannot be started for the reason that a part of the premises would be required for workshop and storage purposes Civil Revision No.1875 of 2007 -: 5 :- only. Regarding the age of the respondent-landlord, learned counsel points out that respondent No.1 is hale and hearty and since the couple does not want to be taken as dependents on their children, he has decided to start the business of steel furniture. It is, thus, contended by him that the order passed by the Appellate Authority warrants no interference. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this Revision Petition. There is no evidence on record to suggest that soon before filing of the eviction petition and/or during the pendency thereof, the respondent-landlord has rented out and/or sold any vacant shop. Even if the plea for additional evidence is allowed, yet the sale deeds, Annexures-P1 to P5, do not have any material bearing on the merits of the present case as it is specifically recited in these sale deeds that either the shops are occupied by the tenants or are vacant plots only. None of these properties, therefore, could be used by the respondent-landlord to start his proposed business. The financial capability of the respondent-landlord to start a new business has not been doubted by the petitioner-tenant. As regard to age factor, the respondent-landlord appears to be well maintained with sound health. In this modern era where the concept of joint families is fading away, it is quite possible that the respondents are not getting the desired fair treatment or respect from their sons. Similarly, a meagre rental income of the shops may be wholly insufficient for them to lead a respectable life. Besides this, the wisdom behind the decision taken by respondent No.1 to start the business of steel furniture cannot be permitted to be questioned by the petitioner-tenant. The Act has already provided statutory safeguard to the petitioner-tenant, inasmuch as, if the respondent- Civil Revision No.1875 of 2007 -: 6 :- landlord fails to occupy the shop in question and/or start his business, the petitioner can always seek restoration of possession in his favour. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, subject to the payment of rent in advance, the petitioner shall not be evicted for a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order so as to enable him to make an alternative arrangement. No order as to costs. May 27, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge