IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.698 of 2008 Date of decision: 6th August, 2010 Kamaljit Singh … Petitioner Versus Ranjit Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. C.M. Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Kukreja, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been preferred by the landlord, who failed in both the Courts below to cause eviction of the respondent- tenant. In the eviction petition, it was stated that the petitioner was landlord of Shop No.109, Industrial Area, Ram Darbar, Phase II, Chandigarh and he had let-out an area measuring 40 X 12 feet, shown in ‘ABCD’ in the rough site plan, attached with the eviction petition at a monthly rent of Rs.3,500/-. It was further stated that the tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 1st July, 1996. Three grounds were pleaded for seeking eviction of the tenant. Firstly, that he had not paid the rent with effect from 1st July, 1996. Secondly, that the tenanted area was required for own bonafide use, i.e. for the purpose of extending the industry. It was stated that the landlord had done Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) and was running a business of manufacturing fabricators under the name and style of ‘J.K. Engineers’ in the same shop. Lastly, it Civil Revision No.698 of 2008 was stated that the demised premises were being misused for residential purposes and also to have bath and clean clothes. Written statement to the eviction petition was filed by the respondent-tenant, wherein he stated that the rent was Rs.1500/- per month and that he had paid the entire rent till February 1999. It was further stated in the written statement that during the pendency of the eviction petition, some other persons were inducted as tenants and therefore, the ground of personal necessity was not made out. The petitioner-landlord appeared as PW-1 and in his examination in-chief, stated that he had issued receipts against the rent received, to the tenant. He further stated that the receipts were prepared by him on a white paper in his own handwriting and carbon copies of the same were retained by him. Furthermore, the rent receipts were signed by him as well as by the respondent-tenant. In cross-examination, he also stated that he can produce the carbon copies of the rent receipts. The respondent-tenant had not produced the balance-sheet and the income tax return. A specific question to this effect was asked in the cross-examination. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh after considering the entire evidence, concluded vide his order dated 31st August, 2005 that the rate of rent was Rs.1500/- per month with effect from 1st February, 1999 and in view of the tender made for the relevant period, it was held that the tenant was not in arrears of rent. The Rent Controller also considered that Baldev Singh PW-2, another tenant examined by the petitioner-landlord, was inducted at a monthly rent of Rs.3,250/- in the year 2000. Therefore, the Rent Controller had drawn an inference that as the tenancy in favour of the respondent was since the year 1991, therefore, ten years before, the prevailing rate of rent was Rs.1500/- per month. The ground of personal necessity was rejected, as after filing of the eviction petition two 2 Civil Revision No.698 of 2008 tenants were subsequently inducted by the landlord. The following findings of the Rent Controller are required to be noticed: “10. In this regard, I am also of the opinion that when the petitioner is not doing any production work in the area under his possession, as such it cannot be said that the area already under the possession of the petitioner is insufficient for running his business. Moreover, during the pendency of the present ejectment petition M/s Chopra and M/s Apex, who were the tenants under the petitioner have vacated the area under their tenancy. As such if the petitioner was really in need of any other area in addition to the area already under his possession, then he should not have rented out the portion to Sh.Kranti Agnihotri and Anil Agnihotri. But in this regard, ld. counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has not rented out any portion to Sh.Kranti Agnihotri and Anil Agnihotri. If this version of the petitioner is taken into consideration, I think when M/s Chopra and M/s Apex have vacated the area under their tenancy during the pendency of the present ejectment petition. I think the petitioner is having more than sufficient area under his possession. As such in view of these facts, it cannot be said that the petitioner requires the area under the tenancy of the respondent for his personal use and occupation. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.” The Rent Controller took into consideration the fact that the petitioner-landlord was engaged in trading of black-oil and was not engaged in any type of manufacturing. These findings were affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 27th September, 2007. I have heard counsel for the parties. Mr. C.M. Makkar, Advocate appearing for the petitioner- landlord, has stated that even though carbon copies of the rent receipts have not been produced by the landlord, it was for the tenant to produce 3 Civil Revision No.698 of 2008 the original receipts to prove the fact that the rent was Rs.1500/- per month. It is secondly submitted that the findings of both the Courts below that the petitioner-landlord was not engaged in manufacturing and was only engaged in trading, are also not based upon any evidence. Once the petitioner-landlord had stated in his cross- examination that carbon copies of the rent receipts were being retained by him and he could produce the same, it was natural for the courts to draw an adverse inference against the petitioner-landlord. Secondly, the very fact that during the pendency of the eviction petition, two tenants had vacated the premises and the same were again let-out by the petitioner- landlord, is sufficient to conclude that the ground of personal necessity was not made out. This Court is conscious of the fact that both the Courts below have returned a concurrent finding of fact, which this Court, while doing re-appraisal and re-appreciation of the evidence, will not dislodge, merely because the petitioner-landlord wishes so. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 6, 2010 rps 4