IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL REVISION NO.2937 OF 2009 Date of decision : 13.7.2010 Rajinder Singh and another … Petitioners Versus Gurcharan Singh and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Present: Mr.Amit Rawal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) This is a tenant’s revision petition against the judgment passed by the Rent Controller as affirmed by the appellate authority ordering the eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises. The respondent-landlady filed petition against the petitioner under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ( in short the ‘Act’) on the ground of non-payment of rent, the building being unsafe and unfit, as also on the ground of personal necessity. The case pleaded by the land-lady was that Sulakhan Singh was owner of the demised premises, he executed a registered Will on 7.8.1994 in favour of Harnam Kaur. After the death of Sulakhan Singh, Smt. Harnam Kaur became the exclusive owner of the property in question under Will, and there existed relationship as landlady and tenant. The case of the landlady is that after the death of Smt. Harnam Kaur, she being sole legal heir, became the owner of the property. The petition was contested by the petitioner-claimant by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant. The petitioner also denied the other averments regarding Civil Revision No.2937 of 2009 building being unsafe and unfit. The ground of personal necessity was also denied. In spite of the fact that the petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, but in order to protect his eviction, he deposited the rent on the first date of hearing. As the petitioner tendered the rent, the ground of non-payment of rent was given up. Learned Rent Controller did not find that building was unfit and unsafe. Accordingly, this ground of eviction was also rejected. The learned Rent Controller however, accepted the plea of landlady that the premises was required for her personal use and occupation. The finding of personal necessity was recorded on appreciation of evidence on record, wherein she had pleaded and proved that the premises was required for the business of her two sons. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Rent Controller. The appellate Court affirmed the finding recorded by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently, contended that impugned order passed by the Rent Controller, as affirmed by the learned appellate Authority, cannot be sustained as there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the learned Rent Controller by wrongly placing reliance on previous judgment, in which the petition for eviction filed by the respondent-landlady on the ground of non-payment of rent, was dismissed as withdrawn after the tender of rent was made, recorded a finding that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant. The contention raised was that the mere tender of rent to save eviction, while protecting the right to recover the amount deposited/paid, cannot amount to admission of relationship as landlady and tenant. 2 Civil Revision No.2937 of 2009 In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Mahant Sarju Vs. Jia Lal,1990 (1) PLR 364. It is also the contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the ground of personal necessity was not proved as the legal heirs of the respondent, in support of their stand, placed reliance on family settlement, executed on 5.1.2005 that is after the death of Amarjit Kaur and therefore, the finding recorded is outcome of misreading of evidence, as no reliance could be placed on the family settlement, which came into existence after filing of the petition. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. It cannot be disputed that mere tender of rent after denying the relationship of landlord and tenant with liberty to seek refund thereafter, cannot be taken to be an admission of relationship of landlady -tenant, but this question does not arise in the present case, as the specific averments made by the respondent-landlady in the petition that she had become owner thus landlady of the property in pursuance to inheritance, being sole legal heir of Harnam Kaur was not controverted in the written statement, as the averments were denied for want of knowledge. The petitioner further failed to disclose who was the landlord. In view of the fact that the averment was not disputed, no further proof was required to prove that the respondent-landlord was the owner of the premises, thus, landlady as owner is always landlord, though landlord may not be owner. Second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also deserves to be rejected. Even in the absence of family settlement, it was always open to the landlady to seek eviction for the personal use and 3 Civil Revision No.2937 of 2009 occupation of her sons as she had no other property to adjust her sons. The subsequent event brought on record to prove that by way of family settlement, the premises in dispute were given to the persons for adjustment of whom the eviction was sought, can not be used to non suit their claim. There is sufficient evidence to prove that the need was bona fide. Both the learned trial Court and appellate authority on appreciation of evidence, have recorded the finding of fact, that building was required for personal use. Merely for the reason that some family settlement was subsequently entered into, cannot be a ground to non-suit the landlord on the ground of personal necessity, as the property by family settlement was given to the sons for whose benefit eviction was sought. For the reasons stated, finding no merit in this petition, it is ordered to be dismissed but with no order as to costs. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is running commercial business in the premises, he is granted three months’ time to vacate the premises. ( VINOD K.SHARMA ) JUDGE 13.07.2010 sd 4