Civil Revision No.7772 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7772 of 2010 Date of Decision : 25th August, 2011 Daya Ram & others .... Petitioners Versus Meenu Sanghi & others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. J. P. Sharma,, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.1. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Tenants having failed before both the Authorities below have filed the instant revision petition. Respondent No.1 land-lady Meenu Sanghi filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of respondents from demised shop on three grounds i.e. Non-payment of rent, subletting and bona fide personal necessity. Tenants controverted the averments made in the ejectment petition and raised various other pleas. Ground of non-payment of rent became redundant as arrears of rent were tendered. Ground of subletting was held not proved. However, ejectment was ordered by learned Rent Controller, Narnaul vide judgment dated 27.04.2009 on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of the land- Civil Revision No.7772 of 2010 -2- lady. Tenants filed appeal against the judgment of Rent Controller whereas the landlady preferred cross-objections/cross-appeal assailing judgment of the Rent Controller regarding negative finding on subletting. Both the appeals have been dismissed by learned Appellate Authority, Narnaul vide common judgment dated 29.09.2010. Feeling aggrieved, tenants have filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that in the ejectment petition, besides other averments there is only casual averment that the land-lady needs the disputed shop for her personal bona fide necessity. It was thus contended that evidence led beyond pleadings regarding alleged necessity to run business of decoration and gifts cannot, therefore, be looked into. It was also pointed out that admittedly shops of husband of the land-lady are lying vacant and she could start her business, at least temporarily, in those shops, but has not done so and it would depict that there is only desire and not necessity to get the disputed shop vacated. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Vidya Rattan Taneja & another versus Ram Lal Sachdeva, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 639. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.1 land-lady contended that the land-lady has two adjoining shops including the disputed shop and ejectment of the tenants from the adjoining shop has already been ordered and upheld upto this Court on the ground of personal necessity of the land-lady who needs both the shops to run her business. Reference was Civil Revision No.7772 of 2010 -3- made to unreported judgment dated 07.07.2011 passed by this Court in CR No.2420 of 2011 ) titled Smt. Durga Devi versus Meenu Sanghi and others relating to the adjoining shop. Counsel for respondent No.1 also pointed that in the replication, the land-lady even elaborated the averment of necessity for the disputed shop. It was pleaded in the replication that the land lady had married her last youngest daughter in February, 2002 and thereafter she mostly remains idle being free from work as house wife and also the disputed shop is located along residential and other property of husband of the land-lady and, therefore, she needs the disputed shop to run her own business and, therefore, evidence cannot be said to be beyond pleadings. It was also pointed out that nature of business is not required to be pleaded. Counsel for respondent No.1 also canvassed that no suggestion was even put in cross-examination either to the landlady herself or to her husband and attorney who also appeared as witness, that the land-lady did not require the disputed shop for her person necessity. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Insofar as case of Vidya Rattan Taneja (Supra) cited by the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same has no applicability to the facts of the instant case. In the reported case, there were three landlords settled at Delhi, Gurgaon and Chandigarh, but they were seeking eviction of tenant from premises situated at Sonipat. No reason was forthcoming as to what was the necessity to shift to Sonipat. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that case, it was found that the need of the landlords was not bona fide and it was mere desire. In the instant case, however, the demised shop is situated at Narnaul. Landlady and her husband are also residents of Narnaul. Consequently in Civil Revision No.7772 of 2010 -4- the instant case, it cannot be said that it is mere desire of the landlady and not her necessity to seek ejectment of the tenants from the disputed shop. Element of necessity in the instant case has been found as a matter of fact by both the Authorities below on appreciation of evidence. In revisional jurisdiction, the said finding cannot be interfered with or reversed because the said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. It also cannot be said that the Authorities below have exercised jurisdiction not vested in them or have refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in them. Consequently impugned judgments of the courts below do not warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Even otherwise, landlady has led sufficient cogent evidence regarding her necessity. The landlady and her husband, who is also her attorney, both appeared in the witness box and stated about bona fide necessity of the landlady to run her own business in the disputed shop and the adjoining shop. No suggestion was given to them in cross- examination that the landlady did not require the disputed shop and the adjoining shop for her own business. Consequently statements made by them in examination-in-chief regarding personal bona fide necessity of the landlady are deemed to have been accepted as correct by the tenants. Even otherwise, it is well settled that landlord is the best judge of his requirement. In the instant case, the landlady requires the disputed shop for her personal necessity for running her own business. She has assigned sufficient reasons for the same. All her daughters have been married. She is now free from domestic work as house wife and wants to carry on her own occupation. Existence of vacant shops of husband of the landlady cannot be Civil Revision No.7772 of 2010 -5- a ground to deny ejectment of tenants from the demised shop because landlady has right to carry on her business in her own shop. If the landlady herself had any other sufficient accommodation of her own, then the position could have been different. Neither the landlady nor her husband can be forced to require the landlady to carry on business in the shop of the husband. Landlady has her own independent right to carry on business in her own shop. Moreover, learned counsel for respondent No.1 pointed out that shops of the husband are on inner side whereas the demised shop is located on the main road. Consequently the demised shop is more suitable for the business of the landlady, having more potential for the business on account of locational advantage. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the concurrent finding of the Authorities below that bona fide personal necessity of the landlady for the demised shop is proved. Consequently ejectment petition has been rightly allowed on this ground. There is thus no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 25th August, 2011 'raj'