Civil Revision No.2910 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2910 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: July 13, 2009. Baldev Raj ...Petitioner(s) v. Joginder Kaur & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the ejectment order dated 16.12.2004 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, as well as the judgment dated 21.2.2009 passed by Additional District Judge-cum-Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dismissing his appeal against the eviction order. Ram Murti (since deceased and represented through legal heirs) filed a petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking the petitioner's eviction from the shop bearing No.B.XXIII-1424, Gali No.12, Janakpuri, Ludhiana, inter-alia, on the grounds that:- (i) the petitioner-tenant has not paid the rent with effect from Civil Revision No.2910 of 2009 -: 2 :- 1.2.1998; and (ii) the landlord requires the premises for his own use and occupation; that he had two sons, namely, Amarjit Singh (aged 35-36 years) and Rajan Man (aged 28 years), the area of the entire premises (including the demised shop) is 70 sq yards and that he is running the business of repair of power-looms by installing three machines, one drill, one grinder and one welding set; that he wants to expand his business so that his sons also join him and for the same they required sufficient accommodation including a small office and the workshop. The demised shop is situated in the industrial area and is, therefore, suitable to set up a separate office, whereas the workshop to continue in the other part of the building already in occupation of the landlord. Since the petitioner-tenant tendered the arrears of rent with effect from the due date, the first ground of eviction was no longer available to the landlord. As regards the second plea, i.e., the demised is required for personal use and occupation, the Rent Controller took notice of the fact that the entire building is measuring 70 sq yards (37.3'x12.6') out of which the petitioner-tenant is occupying the shop measuring 12.6'x9' and as per the site-plan (Ex.P-1), the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner abuts the road whereas the remaining portion in occupation of the landlords abuts the street. Relying upon the decisions of this court that a landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant when he requires the tenanted premises to start the business of his son, the Rent Controller accepted the respondent- landlords' claim. The petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal and also moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to lead additional evidence in order to show that the elder son of the respondent-landlord was carrying on Civil Revision No.2910 of 2009 -: 3 :- his business independently somewhere else. While dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Authority has observed as follows:- “Even RW1 Baldev Raj/tenant has admitted in his cross examination that both the sons of the landlord were working with him in the same premises. He also admitted that two lathes were installed in the premises, besides one welding set, a grinder and one bang. RW2 Bhag Singh also admitted in his cross examination that both the sons of the petitioner were working with him and that the petitioner/landlord had not other space for running his business. In view of the above submission, this court is convinced that the landlord has no other place accept the existing premises for running his business and for the expansion of the business and also for the office required for the expansion of the business. Therefore the demised premises were required to be evicted by the tenant.” The petitioner's application for additional evidence has been also dismissed after observing that the same was filed with a view to delay the proceedings as when the premises is required by the landlord and his sons for construction of an office, it is immaterial that one of his son was carrying on the business separately. Still aggrieved, the petitioner-tenant has approached this court. It may be noticed here that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent-landlord unfortunately expired on 5.1.2008 and his legal representatives got themselves impleaded. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length Civil Revision No.2910 of 2009 -: 4 :- and perused the impugned orders. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that since the landlord has expired during the pendency of the appeal, the very ground of personal necessity pleaded by him, has disappeared and is no longer available. Learned counsel argued that the events subsequent to the passing of the order of eviction are required to be taken note of by the appellate or the revisional Authorities and has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Agrawal (Dead) v. Dhanraji Devi (Dead) by LRs., (2004)8 SCC 76. There can indeed be not quarrel that the court is required to take the subsequent events into consideration in order to determine as to whether or not the ground of bona fide personal necessity is available. The subsequent events can be relied upon not only by the tenant but by the legal representatives of the deceased landlord also. The effect of such subsequent events, however, has to be seen in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case in hand, the respondent-landlord has specifically pleaded before the Rent Controller that he requires the premises to expand the business by associating his sons and wants to construct an office in place of the demised shop. The petitioner-tenant has admitted in his cross- examination that both the sons of the landlord are working with him. It was for the requirement of his sons that the landlord wanted the petitioner's eviction. It is not the case of the petitioner that the landlord's sons have stopped the business run by their father. Since the requirement pleaded and proved pertains to the sons of the landlord, who along with other legal representatives of the deceased, have already joined the proceedings, it Civil Revision No.2910 of 2009 -: 5 :- cannot be said that with the death of the landlord, the premises is no longer required by them. No other point has been urged. No ground to interfere with the impugned orders is made out. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. July 13, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge