CR No.3829 of 2008 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.3829 of 2008 Decided on: 01.09.2009 **** Kharaiti Lal . . . . Petitioner VS. Jatinder Nath . . . . Respondent **** 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: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Chettan Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for the respondent **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed by the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises comprising a shop situate on Mandi Road, Phagwara, District Kapurthala by the Rent Controller, Phagwara vide his order dated 18th July, 2006 and the appeal against the said eviction order has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Kapurthala vide its impugned judgement dated 15th May, 2008. The respondent-landlord sought the petitioner’s eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrict Act, 1949, primarily on the ground that the demised premises is required by him for his personal use and occupation. The plea taken by the respondent-landlord was that he is practising as Chartered Accountant since 1963 at Ludhiana; his son, namely, Sumir Kumar has also joined and is practising as Chartered Accountant since 2000; though his son Sumir Kumar has small office in Ludhiana with hardly any work and his main practice and clientage being in and around Phagwara where he is practising most of the time under the name and style of Sumir Jatinder and Associates at Mandi Road, Phagwara. The respondent-landlord pleaded that there is only CR No.3829 of 2008 - 2 - one small room measuring 10x10 ft. in his possession on the first floor of the demised premises in Phagwara and requires the shop in dispute, measuring 10’ x 42” sq. ft., for the purpose of establishing the offices of his son, who has already started practising as Chartered Accountant at Phagwara. The petitioner-tenant did not dispute the fact that the respondent-landlord and his son are practising as Chartered Accountants at Phagwara also. He, however, contested the bona fide and genuineness of their requirement. The parties went on trial on the following issues:- i. Whether the tender of rent is invalid? OPP ii. Whether the petitioner requires the demised premises for his bona fide personal necessity? OPP. iii. Relief. In support of his plea that the premises is required by him for the opening of the office of his son, the respondent-landlord has brought on record the proof of his son being Chartered Account (Ex.A3), list of his clients at Phagwara (Ex. A4) that license granted to his son to practice as Chartered Account (Ex. A5). The respondent-landlord as well as his son Sumir Kumar both have entered in the witness box as AW1 and AW2. In addition, the respondent has also brought on record the proof of his son being statutory Auditor of Punjab National Bank at Phagwara (Ex. A6), his income tax returns (Ex. P8) etc. so as to establish that his son is mainly practicing in Phagwara and had only a few cases in Ludhiana. As against this, the petitioner-tenant produced Narender Kumar (RW1); Om Parkash (RW2); Satbir Singh (RW3) and Hans Raj, Meter Reader PSEB (RW4) and himself entered the witness box as RW5. The main emphasis laid on behalf of the petitioner-tenant appears to be that the personal necessity projected by the landlord is not genuine or bona fide, as the accommodation already in possession of landlord on the at first floor of the premises, is sufficient to open the office of his son Sumir Kumar – Chartered Accountant. The Rent CR No.3829 of 2008 - 3 - Controller while deciding Issue No.2 held that the landlord has successfully satisfied all the three tests, namely, he requires the premises; the requirement is for his own use and occupation and the requirement is bona fide. The Rent Controller rejected the petitioner’s contention that additional construction could be raised on the first floor, if so required, by the respondent-landlord. The plea that the room at first floor measuring 10’x 10” ft. would be sufficient to open the office, has also been turned down being wholly insufficient to open the office of a Chartered Accountant’s firm in which besides for the Chartered Accountant’s some space for other human resources is also required. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. The petitioner went in appeal which has also dismissed by the Appellate Authority after holding that the requirement has to be seen from the landlord’s point of view who cannot be dictated the manner in which he should adjust himself in the available premises. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned judgements. Relying upon the deposition made by the respondent (AW1), it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that since the son of the petitioner is already having an office at Ludhiana, the so-called requirement of another office at Phagwara, is a mere desire, moreso when his family is permanently settled and residing at Ludhiana only. The counsel also urged that the respondent can raise additional construction on the first floor where one room is already in his occupation and thus the requirement of the respondent’s son, if any, can suitably be meted out. The Courts below have examined the evidence on record threadbare and have concluded that the landlord has made out a case of bona fide necessity within the statutory ingredients of the Act. There is indeed no dispute that the respondent’s son has joined as Chartered Accountant in 2000 and if one reads the statements of the duo (the father and son), it is apparent that the son of the respondent is having one small temporary CR No.3829 of 2008 - 4 - type of office at Ludhiana and he is primarily concentrating to establish and expand his practice as Chartered Accountant in Phagwara only. It has also come on record that the son of the respondent is already in practice at Phagwara along with a partner associate and has a good clientage at Phagwara, as compared to his 3-4 clients at Ludhiana. The respondent’s son is also an income tax assessee at Phagwara and his corporate clientage also appears to be stationed at Phagwara City. In these circumstances, there can hardly be any doubt that the respondent requires the premises to open a comfortable office for his son. The question as to whether such an office can be opened in a room measuring 10’ x 10” ft. has to be seen from the angle of the nature of profession and the requirement of the landlord. In my considered view, a Chartered Accountant cannot be expected to run his office in a small room, who, besides his own consultation room to maintain confidentiality of his clients, requires space for his assisting staff like Auditors and other secretarial staff, peons etc. as well as a small waiting room for the clients. That being the expected requirement, it is near to impossible for the respondent to open such an office in the room available at first floor. Similarly, the respondent cannot be dictated to raise construction on the first floor instead of seeking eviction of his tenant from the ground floor of the premises. As regards the petitioner-tenant’s plea that the respondent and his son are permanently residing at Ludhiana, in my considered view that has no bearing on the bona fide of the personal necessity for the demised premises. The respondent’s son is a beginner in the profession of chartered accountancy. Owing to the distance between Phagwara town and Ludhiana, he can conveniently stay at Ludhiana while running his office at Phagwara which is at a distance of half an hour drive. Besides this it would all depend upon the growth of the profession at Phagwara, which would finally determine his abode. For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner-tenant, however, is granted CR No.3829 of 2008 - 5 - three month’s time to vacate the premises i.e. upto 30th November, 2009 subject to payment of arrears of rent and future rents before 30th November, 2009. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 01.09.2009 shonkar