CR No.3465 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3465 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:26.04.2011. Charanjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Vikram Dutt and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The tenant is in revision against order of the learned Appellate Authority by which order of the learned Rent Controller was reversed and eviction order has been passed. In brief, the demised premises (shop), forming part of the property bearing previous Khana Shumari No.2281/V, presently bearing No.1621, situated at Bazar Atal Sahib, Amritsar, is in possession of the tenant w.e.f. 01.09.1983 @ `55/- per month which was let out to him by Baij Nath who died on 27.05.1992. On 03.09.1999, Madan Lal son of Baij Nath filed the eviction petition against the petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide need, material impairment and the building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The case set up for personal necessity by Madan Lal was that he requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation and for his son, namely, Vikram who is 28 years of age and is likely to be married. During the pendency of the eviction petition, Madan Lal died on 26.01.2004 and his wife Santosh Kumari also died on 26.04.2005. The learned Rent Controller CR No.3465 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - ***** dismissed the eviction petition on 27.02.2006 on the ground that the landlord has failed to prove that the building is required for his personal use and occupation as both husband and wife had died during the pendency of the eviction petition for whom the demised premises was claimed. In appeal, the demised premises was sought to be claimed by Vikram Dutt Rambani for non-residential purposes for starting his business as the demised premises is a shop. During the pendency of appeal, Vikram S/o Madan Lal (landlord) also filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 for the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] in order to aver “that the applicant require the premises in question for his personal use and occupation by running some business for his unemployed son Vikram Rambani. The applicant has neither owned or possessed nor vacated any building within any of the urban localities”. This application though was dismissed, but it was also held by the learned Appellate Authority that “the record has shown that the applicant Madan Lal Rambani has also pleaded that the premises in question is required for personal use and occupation of Vikram Dutt Rambani, who is of the age of 28 years and is likely to be married. This plea of use and occupation is, in itself, inclusive of the plea of starting business. So, there is no necessity of amendment of the ejectment application. Even otherwise also, even if the amendment is allowed, it will only be clarificatory in its nature, as the applicant has already taken the plea of use and occupation”. The learned Appellate Authority also dealt with the objection raised by the tenant that Vikram Dutt Rambani has already joined as a Teacher in DAV Punblic School, Bhikhiwind (private school), therefore, he has no bona fide necessity for running business in the demised premises. In this regard, the learned Appellate Authority had held that it is not necessary that the son of the landlord must remain unemployed, unproductive and wait for the eviction of the tenant for an indefinite period in order to start his own business, therefore, there was no option before Vikram Dutt Rambani to join a job in the private school in the given circumstances. Assailing the order of eviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per para No.6(ii) of the eviction petition, the landlord had not CR No.3465 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - ***** said a word about the requirement of demised premises for business purposes, rather the tone and tenor of the averments made in para No.6(ii) is with regard to residential purposes, therefore, the demised premises, being a shop, cannot be got vacated for residential purposes. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise this issue simply for the reason that it has already been clarified by the learned Appellate Authority while dismissing the application filed by the landlord under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC that use and occupation would be inclusive of the plea of starting business. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. At the first blush, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be attractive if we read only the pleadings of para No.6(ii) of the eviction petition, but keeping in view the observations made by the learned Appellate Authority with regard to the amendment sought by the landlord, which though has been declined, the plea of use and occupation has been found to be the plea for the purpose of starting business, therefore, the petitioner has no cause of action left with him to make a grievance that the learned Appellate Authority has ordered his eviction from the demised premises to be used by the landlord for residential purposes, rather the eviction has been ordered for the purpose of starting business by Vikram Dutt Rambani. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. April 26, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge