C.R. No.3242 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 30.07.2009 Mohd. Suleman and another .....Petitioners versus Pushpawati .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.J.R.Mittal, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Lalit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition has been filed by the tenants who have been ordered to be ejected by the Rent Controller, Malerkotala, vide order dated 13.2.2004, and whose appeal against the said eviction order has also been dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Sangrur vide the judgment dated 1.5.2004. The demised premises is a shop situated in Bazar Telian, Malerkotla. The petitioners are the tenants at a monthly rent of Rs.80/- per month for the last over 18 years. The respondent-landlady sought the petitioners’ eviction, inter- alia on the grounds: (i) that she requires the demised premises for her own use and occupation as her sons, namely, Rakesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar C.R. No.3242 of 2004 2 want to start the business; and (ii) the petitioners-tenants are in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.1997. In support of the first ground, namely, the bonafide personal necessity, the respondent-landlady averred that her husband is running a petty cloth shop at Moti Bazar, Malerkotla and besides a married daughter, she has a married son, namely, Surinder Kumar and two unmarried sons, namely, Rakesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar. The shop was let out to the petitioners in the year 1978 when all the children were minor and school going. While the eldest son, namely, Surinder Kumar, of the respondent- landlady is doing the business of sale and purchase of welding rods in a rented premises, her other two sons, Rakesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar are without any job or business. She accordingly sought the petitioner's eviction so that her above stated two sons could start the business to earn their livelihood. The petitioners contested the eviction petition. They, however, tendered the arrears of rent and as such the second ground of eviction did not survive. The petitioners further averred that two sons of the respondent- landlady constitute a Joint Hindu Family with their father (Sat Pal) and both of them are running the business of cloth merchant alongwith their father. The parties went on trial on the following issues:- “1. Whether the petitioner–landlady requires the demised premises for her personal necessity? OPP. 2. Whether the petition is a malafide one? OPR. 3. Whether Satpal is a necessary party? OPR 4. Relief.” C.R. No.3242 of 2004 3 The landlady appeared as AW-1 and one of her sons, namely, Rakesh Kumar also appeared as AW3. They also led evidence to prove that they have no other premises to start their business. The petitioner-tenants also led oral evidence (RW1 and RW2) and closed the same On consideration of the entire evidence, the Rent Controller has returned a categorical finding that the demised premises is required by the respondent-landlady for the start of business of her two major and unmarried sons who are sitting idle to earn their livelihood. It appears that the married son of the respondent-landlady unfortunately expired during the pendency of the eviction petition. The petitioner-tenants led some evidence to show that after the death of that son, the respondent-landlady is in possession of the shop which was occupied by her deceased son. The Rent Controller has turned down the said plea and rightly so, observing that the deceased son of the respondent-landlady was occupying the shop as a tenant and after his death, his wife was running the business in that shop. The eviction order was accordingly passed. The petitioner-tenants went in appeal, but the same has also been turned down by the learned Appellate Authority after observing as follows:- “......The above discussion clearly shows that the trial court has rightly decided that Pushpawati is landlord/owner of the demised shop, which she has rented out through her husband Sat Pal as the respondents have themselves executed rent note Ex.AW4/1 in her favour. Pushpawati has clearly proved on record that she needs the demised shop for her personal necessity as she wants to run a business in the shop alongwith her two sons. The contentions of the learned C.R. No.3242 of 2004 4 counsel for the appellants that there is no sale deed on the file is a far-fetched contention, as it has been amply proved on record that it is Pushpawati who is landlord/owner of the shop and further more tenant is no one to question the title of the landlord. If he is really interested to do so, he should first vacate the shop and then raise title dispute…..” Still aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. Notice of motion was issued in this revision petition and pursuant thereto, counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and the impugned judgments have been perused. No meaningful argument could be advanced on behalf of the petitioners to show that the respondent-landlady does not require the demised premises for her own use and occupation. As against it, there is overwhelming evidence on record to suggest that the two major and unmarried sons of the respondent-landlady do not have any independent source of livelihood. It also stands proved on the record that no other vacant shop is in possession of the respondent-landlady or her sons. In these circumstances, the genuineness of the respondent- landlady's need cannot be doubted. No case of interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is made out. The revision petition stands dismissed. 30-07-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE