Civil Revision No. 6460 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6460 of 2009 Date of decision : 19.3.2010 Raju Sharma ....Petitioner Versus Gauri Shanker ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the respondent S. D. ANAND, J. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on an averment of personal necessity for use of an unemployed son of his and also on an averment that the petitioner-tenant had done certain acts which had impaired the value and utility of the premises aforementioned. The petitioner-tenant challenged the maintainability of the petition in the present form by averring that he is not the only tenant in the shop in question and that his mother and other siblings are also to be treated as tenants because they have inherited the tenancy from their father who was tenant thereupon. The other averments raised by the landlord on point of personal necessity and material impairment, were also denied. Learned Rent Controller upheld the plea raised by the respondent-landlord for ejectment. The finding was affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, vide order dated 19.9.2009. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, raised Civil Revision No. 6460 of 2009 -2- a preliminary objection to the very jurisdiction of the Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority on an averment that the respondent- landlord having averred that the tenancy was not heritable and having further averred in the petition itself that the petitioner-tenant is a tress passer on the tenanted premises, the adjudication of the controversy by the authorities envisaged under the Act was illegal and inappropriate. In support of the averment, attention of this Court was invited to para 4 (1)(i) wherein an averment was made that the possession of the petitioner- tenant on the premises is unlawful. (“the shop in question was given to the father of the respondent namely Krishan Lal Sharma on rent at the rate of Rs.2000/- per year and the respondent was never inducted as tenant. His possession over the shop in question is un-lawful because the tenancy is not inheritable”). It is apparent, from a perusal of the record, that this point with regard to the heritability or otherwise of the impugned tenancy does not appear to have been pressed during the trial. It also does not appear to have been pressed before the learned Appellate Authority. Further, the petitioner herein cannot wish away the averment made by him in the course of the reply that tenancy is heritable. He is estopped, by his own act and conduct, from denying the possession of the petitioner on the premises under reference. It is, then, argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-landlord had not acted bonafide as it is in evidence that the respondent-landlord and his only son own three tractors and that they are running a kiryana shop in the main market. It may be noticed that the only averment made by the petitioner-tenant, in the context in the affidavit tender in lieu of the examination-in-chief, was that the son of the respondent-landlord is Civil Revision No. 6460 of 2009 -3- already working and the premises are not required by the respondent- landlord. Though the respondent-landlord did concede, in the course of the cross-examination, that he owns three shops at Ropar, he was not cross-examined on point of suitability of those three premises for the purpose of running a business by his son. If the petitioner-tenant was inclined to raise a plea that the tenanted premises are not suitable for running a business and the other premises held by the landlord are more suitable, it was for him to cross-examine the respondent-landlord on the lines indicated above. There is plethora of law to the effect that we must give it to the landlord to decide where exactly he would like run a business, either by himself or through his children. There is enough evidence on record to prove that the only son of the respondent-landlord is unemployed. The mere fact that the respondent-landlord owns three tractors or that he also runs a Kiryana shop would not disable him from raising a claim for vacation of the tenanted premises for the purpose aforementioned. In view of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner-tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. March 19, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE