IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7346 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.11.2011 Chander Prabha & others -----Petitioners Vs. Smt. Santosh Rani Sharma -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. Kulbir Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioners. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. C.M. No.28460-CII of 2011: Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Delay of 96 days in filing this appeal is condoned. Civil Revision No.7346 of 2011 (O&M): C.R. No.7346 of 2011 1. Petitioners who are the legal representatives of one Jiwan Kumar son of Diwan Flori Ram (tenant of the demised shop) have approached this Court challenging the impugned order of eviction dated 10.2.2011 of the Rent Controller, Karnal and the judgment dated 17.5.2011 of the Appellate Authority, Karnal, dismissing their appeal against the aforesaid order of eviction. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that eviction of the tenants has been ordered from the demised premises on the ground that the same is required by the respondent-landlord for her personal bona fide need. As per the averments made, the respondent-landlord and her husband are renowned doctors. They are running Pandit Ram Parkash Hospital, Kidney Centre and Blood Bank and the said hospital is the only hospital in the Northern region with these facilities which is serving the public at large with latest machines for treatment of kidneys and also running the Blood Bank. It has been further averred that they require the shop in question along with other shops for their own use and occupation for expansion of the hospital. The said necessity of the respondent-landlord was denied by the petitioner-tenant. However, on appreciation of evidence and considering the arguments of the counsel for the parties, the Rent Controller held that the shop in question was required by the respondent-landlord for her personal use and occupation for expansion of her hospital. Appeal filed by the 2 C.R. No.7346 of 2011 petitioners against the aforesaid order of eviction was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority observing as under:- “18. After having heard both the sides and perusing the record carefully, it is evident that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the respondent/ landlady wants to expand the hospital by making it multiple speciality Hospital, for which she requires the shop rented to the respondent/tenant along with other two shops in occupation of other tenants. The argument raised on behalf of the appellant that the respondent has no bonafide need for the shop in question is without any basis as it is for the landlord to decide its necessity and a very heavy burden lies upon the tenant to prove otherwise. Respondent/ landlord in the present case has come before the court with clean hands by stating that one of the tenants has already been evicted while other tenant in the third shop has promised to vacate the shop as soon as the present appellant vacates the shop so that all the three shops may be included in the expansion of the Hospital. It has been held in Madho Ram Garg Vs. Baldev Singh Bath and another 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 286 wherein it is observed that it is no part of the court duty to examine whether any business to be set up by the landlord would be successful or not. Held that the choice of the premises, the nature or the extent thereof, rests solely with the landlord. Reference may also be made to 2008(1) RCR 67 wherein it is observed that where the landlord is carrying on business in a portion in first floor of residential accommodation and needs the premises for running the shop, need was held to be bonafide. 3 C.R. No.7346 of 2011 19. The appellant could not point out any thing in the cross examination of the landlady/ respondent from which it can be gathered that the shop in question is being got vacated for the purpose of enhancement of rent or for any other extraneous reason not given in the petition. 20. Argument raised on behalf of the appellant that the particulars as required to be given in the petition under Section 13(3) of the Rent Act, are not given and the petition was liable to be dismissed on this score alone, is also not tenable since pleadings are only for proper adjudication of the matter. Where the petitioner had sufficient notice of the case/stand taken by the landlord, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the tenant if the particular words, as given in the provision have not been specified. Otherwise also, in the Rent Act itself, provision has been made to safeguard the interest of the tenant on being evicted on the ground of personal necessity. Clause 13(b) of the Rent Act, 1973 reads as under:- “Where a landlord, who has obtained possession of a building or rented land in pursuance of an order under sub-clause (i) of clause(a) or clause (b) of sub-section (3), does not himself occupy it or if possession was obtained under sub-clause (v) of clause (a) or sub- section (3), his family does not occupy the residential building, or if possession was obtained by him on behalf of his son in pursuance, of an order under sub- clause (ii) of clause (a) of clause of sub-section (3), his son does not occupy it for the purpose for which possession was obtained, for a continuous period of twelve months from the date of obtaining possession or where a landlord who has obtained possession of a 4 C.R. No.7346 of 2011 building under clause (c) of sub-section (3) puts that building to any use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the controller for an order directing that the possession of such building or rented land shall be restored to him and the controller should make an order accordingly.” 3. Both the authorities below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the demised premises is required by the respondent-landlord for her personal use and occupation i.e. for expansion of the hospital. 4. Even before this Court, nothing could be pointed out to find fault with the aforesaid finding. It is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and the tenant cannot dictate his terms with regard to suitability of the accommodation. 5. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition. 6. Dismissed. November 30, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 5