C.R.No.6925 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6925 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.12.2008 M/s Kanika Engineering Works & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Gian Chand Goyal ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER ..... Present : Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. MAHESH GROVER, J.(Oral) Delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 7.6.2007 and the Appellate Authority dated 3.4.2008. A petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 was preferred against the petitioners on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues for determination :- 1. Whether the petitioner require the premises in question for bona fide need of his son Surender. If so to what effect? OPP 2. Whether the present petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPD C.R.No.6925 of 2008 -2- 3. Relief. The petitioners who are tenants had denied the fact that the premises were required for bona fide need and occupation of the respondent-landlord. In so far as the rent was concerned, the same was paid as a result of which the only effective issue which had to be determined by the courts below was the issue of bona fide necessity. The respondent-landlord had pleaded that he required the premises for the use and occupation of his son who was an electronics engineer by profession and was serving in a private company where his future was insecure. It was further pleaded that the premises were required for setting up an industrial unit for which raw material was available in and around Delhi and in so far as the finished product was concerned, there was ample market in Gurgaon itself. Both the courts came to the conclusion that the bona fide need stood established. Aggrieved by the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, the petitioners have filed the present revision petition and it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the bona fide need as stated by the respondent- landlord is merely an expression of his desire and is not fortified by any evidence on record. Therefore, it was submitted that merely because the respondent-landlord has stated that the premises are required would not be sufficient. His son is concededly serving in a private company and, therefore is adequately employed. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the bona fide need as expressed by the respondent-landlord in his C.R.No.6925 of 2008 -3- pleadings and as testified by him before the learned Rent Controller does not stand established. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the contention as raised before this Court is misplaced. The testimony of the respondent-landlord and his son was produced before this Court and perused. In no unequivocal terms both the respondent-landlord and his son stated that it is after the vacation of the premises that they intend to start their business. It has also been stated by the respondent-landlord that his son is not facing a certain future and therefore he would like to set up the business in the demised premises which place has ample market and is also surrounded by the area where there is easy availability of raw-material for manufacturing of goods. It is the settled proposition of law that the landlord is a best judge of his need. The Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 1998(2) RCR 533 has observed as follows :- “14. The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is C.R.No.6925 of 2008 -4- often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms of the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.” In Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222 the following was the observation of the Supreme Court :- “....the requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradiction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant refers to a state of mind prevailing with the landlord. The only way of peeping into the mind of the landlord is an exercise undertaken by the judge of facts by placing himself in the armchair of the landlord and then posing a question to himself – Whether in the given facts, substantiated by the landlord, the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest ? If the answer be in positive, the need is bona fide....” In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the revision petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such. 15.12.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss