CR No.7397 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CR No.7397 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:27.01.2011. M/s Moji Ram Labh Chand ...Petitioner Versus Ishwar Chand ...Respondent (2) CR No.7398 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:27.01.2011. Chhabil Dass ...Petitioner Versus Ishwar Chand ...Respondent (3) CR No.7423 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:27.01.2011. Chhabil Dass ...Petitioner Versus Ishwar Chand ...Respondent (4) CR No.7424 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:27.01.2011. M/s Moji Ram Labh Chand ...Petitioner Versus Ishwar Chand ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** CR No.7397 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ****** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This order shall dispose of four revision petitions namely, CR No.7397 of 2010 titled as `M/s Moji Ram Labh Chand Vs. Ishwar Chand', CR No.7398 of 2010 titled as `Chhabil Dass Vs. Ishwar Chand', CR No.7423 of 2010 titled as `Chhabil Dass Vs. Ishwar Chand' and CR No.7424 of 2010 titled as 'M/s Moji Ram Labh Chand Vs. Ishwar Chand'. In brief, the landlord Ishwar Chand filed two eviction petitions against his tenants namely, M/s Moji Ram Labh Chand from a single storey shop No.1595, Ward No.24 and Chhabil Dass from a single storey shop No.1592 of Ward No.24, Anaj Mandi, near Ghanta Ghar, Jind on the grounds of non-payment of rent, personal necessity and impairment of value and utility of the demised premises. The learned Rent Controller, Jind ordered eviction of both the tenants subject to a condition that the landlord shall surrender the possession of the premises kept by him which belongs to the Market Committee, Jind. This led to the filing of 4 appeals before the learned Appellate Authority, two at the instance of the landlord against the said condition and two at the instance of the tenants against the order of eviction. The learned Appellate Authority, however, dismissed the appeals filed by the tenants and allowed the appeals filed by the landlord by deleting the condition imposed by the learned Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, four revision petitions have been filed before this Court by the tenants, obviously two against the order by which the appeals filed by the landlord have been allowed and two against the orders by which their appeals against the order of eviction were dismissed. Shri Puneet Bali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/tenants in all the four revision petitions, has submitted that in the eviction petitions, the landlord had only averred that he requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation and for the occupation of his son Parveen Kumar for doing kariyana business without disclosing that he is in the need of the second shop as well. In both the eviction petitions, the position is the same, but in the second eviction petition, he has alleged that a separate eviction petition is being filed against Chhabil Dass. It is also argued that the landlord had earlier filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction against the CR No.7397 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ****** Market committee, Jind that he is in possession of a premises allegedly owned by the Market Committee, Jind, of which he has become the owner by virtue of adverse possession and the said suit was partly decreed as decree for declaration was declined on the ground that right of ownership has not matured, but decree for injunction was granted on the ground of long established possession. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the learned Appellate Authority had committed an error by leaving an application for additional evidence filed by the petitioners alive on record in which it was highlighted that the landlord has purchased three shops vide registered sale deed No.1788 dated 15.12.1978 which was not disclosed in the eviction petition which bars him to raise the ground of personal necessity. He also submitted that conduct of the landlord is not equitable because in the suit for declaration, he claimed his ownership over the premises owned by the Market Committee, Jind, whereas in the eviction petition, he alleged himself to be in unauthorized possession of it. In reply, first of all, learned counsel for the respondent has admitted the fact that the application for additional evidence is not decided by the learned Appellate Authority. However, it is not disputed that when this case was pending before a Coordinate Bench of this Court, both the parties were asked to file affidavits to the effect that whether the averments made in the additional evidence could improve the case of the petitioners/tenant in any manner. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits. In the affidavit filed by the respondent/landlord, it was admitted that vide sale deed No.1778 dated 15.12.1978, 3 shops were purchased out of joint family funds by landlord Ishwar Chand and his two brothers and all the three shops were transferred by Ishwar Chand and his two brothers in favour of Rajiv Kumar Bansal by way of a registered release deed No.801 dated 31.05.2001, the certified copy of which is already on the Appellate Court's file. He also submitted that the said property is in a dilapidated condition, unfit and unsafe for human habitation and for doing any business and is owned by Rajiv Kumar Bansal after the execution of the release deed. It is categorically stated by learned counsel for the respondent that the landlord Ishwar Chand has no concern at all either with the ownership or possession of the shops which are alleged to have been purchased vide sale CR No.7397 of 2010 (O&M) -4- ****** deed No.1778 dated 15.12.1978. Thus, the question arises whether the order of the learned Appellate Authority be set aside and the case be remanded back to decide the application once both the parties had agreed to lead their respective evidence by way of affidavits before this Court. Landlord Ishwar Chand has led documentary evidence by way of registered release deed to show that the shops purchased by him and his two brothers vide sale deed No.1778 dated 15.12.1978 have been transferred by all the three brothers in favour of Rajiv Kumar Bansal by way of registered release deed dated 31.05.2001 and has also made a statement before this Court to his own peril that he has nothing to do either with its ownership or possession. In view of the above discussion, I do not think that anything more is required to be observed in respect of the application for additional evidence which is accordingly disposed of. Insofar as the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners about non-mentioning of fact in the eviction petition that he wants two shops instead of one shop is concerned, in this regard, after considering the facts and circumstances which have been gathered from the pleadings and evidence on record, I am of the view that the respondent has very categorically stated in the eviction petition that the demised premises are required for his own use and occupation and for the occupation of his son Parveen Kumar for doing kariyana business and in his second eviction petition he has mentioned that he has filed separate eviction petition against Chhabil Dass in this regard. Moreover, the question of personal necessity of the landlord could not be dictated by the tenant as held by the Courts in plethora of judgments as to how he is going to use the demised premises after eviction. In view of the above observations, I do not find any merit in all these four revision petitions and as such, the same are hereby dismissed. No costs. January 27, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE