Civil Revision No.3248 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3248 of 2008 Date of decision: May 30, 2008. Yash Pal Juneja ...Petitioner(s) v. Satish Kumar Sandooja ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri Amrit Lal Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition is preferred by the tenant against whom an ejectment order dated 18.10.2007 was passed by the Rent Controller, Gurgaon and which has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority vide its judgment dated 31.3.2008. The facts may be noticed briefly. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short the Act) for eviction of the petitioner from shop No.53/3 situated in Ward No.3, Fountain Chowk, Sohna, District Gurgaon (in short the demised premises) on the grounds that:- (i) the petitioner has failed to make payment of rent Civil Revision No.3248 of 2008 -: 2 :- and house tax since 1.3.1998; (ii) the petitioner, in collusion with the tenant in the adjoining shop, has constructed a wall Mark CE in the verandah in front of the demised premises and has, thus, materially impaired the value and utility thereof; and (iii) the demised premises is required by the respondent-landlord for his personal use and occupation. The petitioner contested all the grounds, however, tendered the entire arrears of rent. As regard to the construction of wall mark CE in the verandah, the petitioner took the plea that he never raised the same. Similarly, the 'bona fide personal necessity' of the respondent was also disputed on the ground that the shop known as “Mangal Deep Emporium” belongs to him as his father, being quite old and infirm, is incapable to run the business. Besides leading oral evidence consisting of his own statement (PW1) and of his brother Rakesh Kumar (PW2), the respondent-landlord also led documentary evidence, Ex.P1, P-2 and Ex.P2/1 in support of the eviction petition. The petitioner led oral evidence consisting of RW1 to RW4 as well as the documentary evidence comprising of Ex.R1 to R7, Ex.RW3/1 and Ex.RW2/1. On a consideration of the evidence referred to above, both the courts have concurrently held that since the entire arrears of rent were tendered by the petitioner in court, the first ground of eviction was no longer available to the respondent. Regarding impairment of the value and utility of the shop by constructing the wall in verandah, the learned Rent Controller held that mere construction of the said wall or installation of rolling shutter has not affected the value and utility of the demised premises. The third ground pressed into service by the respondent, however, found Civil Revision No.3248 of 2008 -: 3 :- favour with the Rent Controller who held that the respondent-landlord is working in the shop owned and run by his father – Mangal Dass and since his brothers have separate mess and occupation/business, he too requires the demised premises to set up his own cloth business. It was further held that the respondent-landlord has no other premises for doing the business independently nor has he vacated any other such premises after coming into force of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. While arriving at the aforesaid conclusions, the learned Rent Controller observed that the respondent is a grown up person and the three ration cards Ex.P7, P11 and P-12 read with Ex.PW2/1 make it amply clear that the respondent's and his brothers' families are living separately. It has also been found that the father of the respondent, who is 70 years old, is an income tax assessee (income tax returns Ex.P8, P9 and P10) and it stands proved that he is running his own business. The Rent Controller, thus, concluded that since the respondent wants to start his own business like his other brothers and father, his necessity is totally 'bona fide'. The petitioner preferred an appeal. However, after an elaborate discussion, the Appellate Authority has also held that the landlord has been able to establish that the demised premises is required by him for his own use and occupation. Still aggrieved, the petitioner-tenant has preferred this Revision Petition. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at length and perused the impugned judgments. It is vehemently argued that a shop was rented out by the respondent about 15 years before filing of the present eviction petition Civil Revision No.3248 of 2008 -: 4 :- which would necessarily mean that he has failed to satisfy the statutory ingredients of the Act required to be proved for eviction on the ground of 'bona fide' personal necessity. It is also urged that the father of the respondent did not step into the witness box due to which the circumstances which have allegedly compelled the respondent to start his own business have remained under clouds. In this regard, reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Jagmohan singh v. Sanjeev Kumar Syal, (2000-3) PLR 261. It is then contended by the learned counsel that the eviction petition is a device to enhance the rent which was increased five times in the past and, thus, there exists no element of 'bona fide necessity' as held by this Court in the case of Smt. Parkash Sood v. Surinder Singh Bawa, 1980(1) RLR 487. Learned counsel suggests that as the father of the respondent is 70 years old and crippled person, he is disabled to run the business at his own, therefore, 'Mangal Deep Emporium', de facto belongs to the respondent only. Lastly, it is argued that in the absence of genuine personal necessity, the respondent at the best has a mere 'desire' to get the shop vacated, which is not a ground of eviction, as laid down by this Court in the case of Shri Pritam Singh v. Virender Kumar Bhalla & Anr., 1980(1) RLR 495. I, however, do not find any merit in any of these contentions. Section 13(3) of the Act enables a landlord to seek eviction of his tenant if he requires the demised premises for his own occupation provided that he does not have any other such building in the urban area concerned and has not vacated such a building without 'sufficient cause' after the commencement of 1949 Act. In other words, besides his personal necessity, the landlord is also obligated to prove the above noticed two Civil Revision No.3248 of 2008 -: 5 :- other ingredients as well. It is well settled that a tenant cannot dictate the terms for his landlord as to how the latter can adjust himself without asking for eviction of the tenanted premises. That apart, even if an alternative accommodation is available, it is for the landlord to decide as to how and in what manner he should fulfill his requirements. However, a tenant cannot be asked to vacate a premises on mere 'desire' of the landlord. The evidence on record does suggest that the respondent- landlord is about 40 years old. Even if a vacant shop was let out by him more than 15 years back, it would be too suppositious or imaginative to expect the respondent to have entered the world of business at that very juncture and thereafter he cannot start his own separate business. It Further appears that the respondent's brothers are already running their own businesses. The bona fides of the respondent, who is married and saddled with family responsibilities, therefore, cannot be doubted on the strength of conjectures and surmises. The shop “Mangal Deep Emporium” is admittedly owned and run by his father. No material on record has been pointed out to infer that the respondent's father is inclined to hand over that shop and business in favour of the respondent only, ignoring his other children. It is also not the petitioner's case that another vacant premises is available with the respondent-landlord. In these circumstances, the concurrent finding of fact returned by the courts below that the subject premises is required by the respondent to start his own business does not call for any interference by this Court. The contention that the respondent's father did not step into the witness box, is wholly misconceived as the petitioner's eviction is not sought on the ground of necessity of the Civil Revision No.3248 of 2008 -: 6 :- respondent's father. Similarly, there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent ever bargained with the petitioner to increase the rent and/or face the eviction proceedings. Likewise, the plea that the eviction has been sought on a mere desire only, is also contrary to the evidence on record. No other point has been urged. For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this Revision Petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, in order to enable the petitioner to make an alternative arrangement and further subject to his paying advance rent for the period, it is directed that the eviction of the petitioner shall remain stayed for a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. May 30, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge