Civil Revision No. 354 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 354 of 2008 Date of decision : 15.2.2010 Tek Chand ....Petitioner Versus Kewal Krishan Mahajan and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate for the respondents S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-tenant having lost the battle before both the Courts below i.e. the Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority, is in revision against the impugned orders vide which he faces ejectment from the tenanted premises. Both the Courts upheld the plea raised by the respondent-landlord for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises, on a plea of personal necessity and subletting. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that the petition is malafide on the face of it inasmuch as the respondent had filed an earlier petition against the petitioner-tenant for ejectment of the latter from the tenanted premises on pleas of a) non payment of rent, b) subletting and c) Civil Revision No. 354 of 2008 -2- **** change of user. That proceedings ended in a compromise. The parties agreed to the enhancement of rent and the petition was withdrawn. Reliance, in support of the view aforementioned, is placed upon Ex. R-4 and Ex.R-5. Ex. R-4 purports to be a statement made by the petitioner-tenant to the effect that he had arrived at a compromise with the respondent that he would pay rent at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month with effect from 1.4.1996 and that he would deposit an indicated sum towards security rent equal to three months time. He also paid the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.18000/- on that very date. Ex. R-5 purports to be a statement made by respondent-landlord having accepted the statement aforementioned withdrawing the petition. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent, correctly argues that reliance place upon on behalf of Ex. R5 is thoroughly misconceived in view of the fact that petition aforementioned came to be filed in the year 1994 and disposed of in the year 1996. It is also pointed out that petition aforementioned had been filed when averred subletting was in favour of one K.K.Sharma. In the present case, the argument proceeds, the averred sub-tenant is one B.D.Gupta and the further averment, in the context, is that tenancy is existing for the last about one year prior to the filing of the present petition in the year 2002. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to challenge the correctness of the factual averment aforementioned. It cannot, thus, be said that there Civil Revision No. 354 of 2008 -3- **** is anything malafide on the part of the respondent herein in filing the present ejectment petition on a plea of subletting. It is, then, argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that respondent does not require the premises for his personal use and occupation inasmuch as he had not even made an averment in the course of the petition that he requires the premise for his individual need. It is also argued that the respondent-landlord is aged 70 years and there is no reason why he would start a business afresh at this 'ripe' age. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-landlord has his reservation about description of the age of the respondent-landlord as 'ripe age' and it is also argued that though all his children are well settled else where, the respondent- landlord cannot be denied entitlement to exercise a discretion to start a business in his own right. For the very reasons advocated on behalf of the respondent, I agree with the finding recorded by both the Courts below and also with the reasoning recorded in support thereof. This applies not only to the personal necessity facet but also to the finding on the point of subletting. The latter finding is upheld in view of the proven position that there is a telephone connection operational in the tenanted premises in the name of the averred statement. By the very nature of things, subletting facet is a secret arrangement and it would be fairly difficult for the landlord to come across documented evidence. In that context, it may be noticed that if the premises have Civil Revision No. 354 of 2008 -4- **** not been sublet to the sub tenant, there is no reason why a telephonic connection in the name of the sub tenant would be operational in the tenanted premises. It is not even averred on behalf of the petitioner herein that the STD booth in the tenanted premises is being run with telephone connection which petitioner herein obtained from somebody else i.e. that he had obtained the telephone connection from the sub tenant. This aspect would be appreciated in the light of the proven position that tenanted premises had been let out for running of a Kiryana business; whereas it is a STD booth which is being presently run therein. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. February 15, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE