CR No.3346 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3346 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.9.2011 Parveen Kaur Arora and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus Parveen Kumar and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Amardeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. KDS Sodhi, Advocate and Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is tenants' revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 27.8.2008 of the Rent Controller, Jalandhar whereby eviction of the petitioners has been ordered from the demised premises and the judgment dated 8.2.2010 of the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar dismissing their appeal against the aforesaid order of the eviction. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlords filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Urban Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') pleading that they were owner/landlord of the demised property which was purchased by them by way of registered sale deed dated 26.4.1999. One Surinder Kumar (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) was inducted as a tenant in the said shop by way of rent note dated 29.5.1991 at the rate of ` 425/- per month under Surti Lal from whom the respondents have purchased the said property and as such, there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further averred that after the death of Surinder CR No.3346 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Kumar, the demised property was lying closed and the petitioners had ceased to occupy the same since then. It was further pleaded that initially the rate of rent was ` 425/- per month which was to be increased at the rate of 5% every year and at present, the rate of rent is ` 468/- per month. The ejectment of the petitioners was sought on the ground that they were in arrears of rent since June, 2003 at the rate of ` 468/- per month; that they have ceased to occupy the demised premises after the death of Surinder Kumar; that the demised property was unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the same was required by them for their bona fide necessity. It was further pleaded that the respondents had not vacated any other premise without any sufficient cause since commencement of the Act. Upon notice, the petitioners filed joint written statement admitting the ownership of the landlord-respondents and previous ownership of Surti Ram. Rate of rent was also admitted. It was denied that they were liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the grounds as pleaded in the petition. Dismissal of the petition was sought. Rejoinder was filed by the respondent-landlord in which the averments made in the written statement were denied and those of ejectment petition was reiterated. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “1. Whether the demised premises are unfit and unsafe for human habitation? OPP 2. Whether the demised premises are bonafide required for personal use and occupation by the petitioners?OPP 3. Whether the petitioners concealed the material CR No.3346 of 2010 (O&M) 3 facts? OPR 4. Whether the respondent No.2 is minor, if so, whether the present petition is not maintainable against him? OPR 5. Relief.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, the Rent Controller vide order dated 27.8.2008 ordered the eviction of the petitioners on the ground of personal necessity under issue No.2. Issues no.3 and 4 were not pressed by the petitioners and as such, were decided against them. The Rent Controller also found that issue No.1 has not been proved and the same was decided against the landlord-respondents. Feeling aggrieved from the order of eviction, the tenant- petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 8.2.2010. It is useful to refer to the pleadings of the landlord- respondents to establish their need of personal necessity. It has been pleaded by them that they are young and unemployed. They have no source of income and they wanted to start their own business in the demised property as their father is 95 % blind and their mother is 75% handicapped. In the written statement, the tenant-petitioners have taken a plea that there was a godown in possession of the landlords behind the shop which can be converted into shop and the demised property was not required by them for their bona fide necessity. While upholding the order of eviction, the Appellate Authority found that one of the tenants Parveen Rani, who appeared as RW-1, had CR No.3346 of 2010 (O&M) 4 admitted in her cross-examination that Mohan Lal, father of the landlords, is having weak eyesight and the landlords are doing the business of aluminum in the shop facing the road. It has been further admitted by her that she had not seen the godown behind the shop and it may be in dilapidated condition. It was also admitted that the respondents are owners of the shop in question and they wanted to start their own business in the said shop. It was also found by the Appellate Authority that the landlord-respondents were not owner of any other building nor they have vacated the same without any sufficient cause within the Municipal Limits, Jalandhar. The Appellate Authority further held that the evidence has also come on the file by way of photographs that the alleged godown behind the shop has already been demolished and therefore, keeping in view the settled proposition of law that the landlord himself is the best judge of his needs, the impugned order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller rightly. Challenging the findings of the Authorities below, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant-petitioners by referring to order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar in Ejectment Application No.30/2004 titled as “Parveen Kumari and anr. Versus M/s Anand Super Store Rama Mandi, Jalandhar” wherein an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the landlord- respondents for a godown situated on the back side of the demised premises and cross-examination of PW-1, has vehemently contended before this Court that it has been established that it is a mere wish of the landlord-respondents to evict the petitioners and they are not in bona fide need of the property in dispute as on similar grounds they have got vacated the godown situated on the back side of the demised premises vide order dated 10.10.2006 as aforesaid but instead of starting their business in that godown, they have demolished the same and CR No.3346 of 2010 (O&M) 5 from the aforesaid fact, it is established that need of the landlord- respondents is not bona fide and they want to get the property vacated by all means. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and has supported the impugned orders. It has been vehemently argued by him that from the evidence on record, bona fide need of the landlord-respondents has been established and moreover, in view of the settled law that landlord is the best judge of his needs, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and also the other record with the help of the counsel for the parties. The solitary contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case is without any force. A perusal of Annexure R-1 would show that the landlord-respondents had filed the ejectment application against the tenants of the godown on the ground of arrears of rent; that the said godown was lying closed and was in dilapidated condition and had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and they required the godown in question for their personal use and occupation and to start business by citing same reasons as mentioned in the instant ejectment application. It is also a matter of fact that the aforesaid eviction order has been passed ex parte against the tenants and no one has come forward to contest the same. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the godown has been demolished by the respondents and therefore, their mala fides are proved, cannot be accepted at this stage because a perusal of the eviction order dated 10.10.2006 passed in the ejectment application placed on record as CR No.3346 of 2010 (O&M) 6 Annexure R-1 clearly shows that, in that petition, the respondent-landlords had taken a specific stand that the said godown was in dilapidated condition and in case after getting the possession of the same, they have demolished the same, there is nothing wrong in it because one cannot be expected to work in a building which is unsafe and unfit for human habitation and simply because it has been demolished, will not ipso facto establish the fact that the petitioners are not in need of demised shop for their business. Even Parveen Kaur-petitioner in her cross-examination has admitted that godown behind the shop may be in dilapidated condition. It is well settled that landlord is the best judge of his need and tenant cannot dictate him to adjust his requirement of accommodation in a particular manner. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. September 15, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE