IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 696 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 08, 2010 Jagdish Rai Behl …Petitioner Versus Parvez Kumar and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers 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. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jaiveer Chandail, Advocate, for the respondents. Alok Singh, J. Tenant – revisionist has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the judgment / order C.R. No. 696 of 2010 dated 22.10.2009 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Bathinda, as well as judgment / order dated 11.01.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Bathinda. In nutshell, facts of the present case, inter-alia, are that the landlord – respondents have filed eviction petition against the tenant – petitioner herein on three grounds viz. tenant is in arrears of rent from May 1993 till the date of the filing of the eviction petition; tenant has broken the northern wall of the shop and opened a door and thereby materially impaired the value and utility of the shop and has weakened the walls of the shop; and landlord requires the tenanted shop for his business; landlord is engineer in Computer Branch and did his BE in computer branch from Nagpur University, Nagpur, in the year 1993 and he intends to open a compute centre in the tenanted shop. At present, landlord is running his computer centre business in a room on the first floor in Gole Diggi Market, The Mall, Bathinda, however, that place is not suitable for the landlord and he intends to start computer business in the demised shop. Tenant–petitioner herein refuted the claim of the landlord by way of filing written statement and denied the fact of arrears of rent, and also denied that tenant has opened any door in the northern wall and has materially 2 C.R. No. 696 of 2010 impaired the value and utility of the shop. Tenant further denied any need in favour of the landlord. It is further contended by the tenant – petitioner that landlord is having two adjacent shops which were being let out for liquor vend purposes on year to year basis in favour of the contractor obtaining license to run liquor vend. It is further contended by the tenant that had there been any need landlord would have not let out the adjacent shop for the liquor vend on year to year basis. Learned Rent Controller vide impugned judgment dated 22.10.2009 allowed the eviction petition filed by the landlord – respondent and directed the eviction of the petitioner – tenant on the ground that tenant – petitioner without any written consent of the landlord has illegally opened the door on the northern wall of the shop measuring 3’ x 6’, thereby materially impaired the value and utility of the shop and wall of the shop has weakened due to the illegal opening by the tenant. However, learned Rent Controller did not find favour with the landlord on the question of arrears of rent and bona fide need. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment dated 22.10.2009 passed by the learned Rent Controller, an appeal being Rent Appeal No.5 of 09.11.2009 was preferred by the tenant in which landlord also filed cross-objections 3 C.R. No. 696 of 2010 being No. 6 of 11.11.2009, challenging the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the question of bona fide need. Learned Appellate Authority vide impugned judgment dated 11.01.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant – petitioner and allowed the cross-objections filed by the landlord. Learned First Appellate Court has directed eviction of the tenant – petitioner on two grounds. one material alteration diminishing the value and utility of the shop and second, landlord requires the demised shop for his personal use and occupation to run the business of computer centre. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Learned counsel for the tenant – petitioner vehemently argued that admittedly there are two adjacent shops to the shop in question. He contends that both the adjacent shops are being let out by the landlord for the purpose of liquor vend to the contractors who obtains license to run liquor vend on year to year basis. It is further contended by Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner – tenant that had there been any need to establish the computer centre in the area where demised shop is located, landlord would not have let out adjacent two shops for the purpose of liquor vend. 4 C.R. No. 696 of 2010 Mr. Jindal, learned counsel further argued that it could not be proved on record that any opening was made by the tenant as suggested by the landlord. According to Mr. Jindal, door was in-existence much much prior to the purchase of the demised shop by the landlord, hence, landlord cannot seek eviction on the basis of opening of the door which was in-existence prior to the purchase of the demised shop by the landlord. Mr. Arun Jain, learned Senior counsel for the respondent – landlord, assisted by Mr. Jaiveer Chandail, Advocate, vehemently argued that landlord is the best judge of his need and if landlord is alleging that shop in question is suitable place to start his computer business, tenant has no business to direct the landlord to get vacated two other adjacent shops from the liquor vend licencee to start his computer business. Mr. Arun Jain, further argued that undisputedly, in the adjacent shops, business of liquor vend is being carried out for last more than 15 years. It is further contended by Mr. Jain, that most of the time, the family members or partners of the liquor contractor take the license to run the liquor vend, hence, most of the time license is being issued in different names but fact remains during the last 15 years adjacent shops never came into the possession of the landlord. Mr. Jain further 5 C.R. No. 696 of 2010 argued that the learned Appellate Authority has rightly found that landlord is the best judge of his need and landlord has every need for the demised shop for his personal use and occupation to run the computer business. Mr. Arun Jain further argued that both the Courts below have rightly recorded the finding in favour of the landlord that tenant by way of illegal opening of the door measuring 3’x6’ on the northern wall of the shop had diminished the utility and value of the tenanted property. Undisputedly, landlord is a Bachelor in Engineering in Computer Science. Undisputedly landlord is the owner of the shop in dispute. Undisputedly, landlord is running computer centre on the first floor of the other building. Learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Rani Devi and others vs. Shakuntla Devi and others, reported in 2009(2) RCR (Rent) 218, in paragraph 14 has held as under:- “14. The mere fact that the landlord had rented out one room in the disputed house to one Babu Ram during the pendency of the case would not disentitle the landlord from seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. Even if alternative accommodation was available, it is 6 C.R. No. 696 of 2010 for the landlord to decide as to how and in what manner he should fulfil his requirement. The tenant cannot dictate terms to his landlord as to how the latter should adjust his family and, hence, this argument of the counsel for the petitioners is devoid of any merit. In Hans Raj's case (supra) it was held that the mere fact that another portion fell vacant during pendency of proceedings and the same was let out by the landlord, the same would not be a ground to reject the eviction application of the landlord on the ground of personal requirement.” Learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Madho Ram Garg vs. Baldev Singh Bath and another, reported in 2008(1) RCR (Rent) 620, in paragraph no.19 has held as under:- “19 …… It is no part of a Court’s duty to examine whether the business to be set up would be successful or not in the tenanted premises. The success or otherwise of a proposed business lies in the realm of speculation and Court abjure speculative conclusions. The choice of the premises, the nature or the extent thereof rest solely with a landlord. A court cannot, while examining the evidence, imposed its own 7 C.R. No. 696 of 2010 perception of the nature, extent or choice of the landlord….” It is now settled position of law that landlord is the best judge of his need and place. If landlord states that demised shop would be the suitable place to establish and run his business, neither tenant nor Court can say to establish and run the business in the alternative portion available with the landlord. Moreover, the finding of the learned Appellate Authority is that landlord is fetching very good monthly income i.e. Rs.5000/- per month from the liquor vend; whereas rent of the demised shop is Rs. 345/- per month only, hence equity is in favour of the landlord not to touch the shops in the tenancy of the liquor vend which is giving higher monthly rent. The Apex Court in Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 1998(8) SCC 119, in paragraph 14 while interpreting the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, has held as under: - “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 8 C.R. No. 696 of 2010 the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord in bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to 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.” The Apex Court in the matter of Maganlal Vs. Nanasaheb 2009(1) Civil Court Cases 102 (SC) in paragraph 16 has held as under: - “This Court in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 252 held that it is always a prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business, this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad, therefore, it is not genuine need. Further, it is held that it is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of the business.” 9 C.R. No. 696 of 2010 In the case of Balbir Kaur and others vs. Roop Lal and other, Civil Revision No. 3105 of 2010, decided on 23.08.2010, while placing the reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Ahuja (supra) and Maganlal (supra), this Court held as under:- “From the above dictum, it is well established that it is the prerogative of the landlord to expand his business. If landlord asserts that he requires the tenanted premises to expand his business, his need must be presumed as bonafide. Rent Controller shall not proceed to presume that alleged need is not bonafide.” Section 13(4) of the Act reads as under: - “13(4) Where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building or rented land in pursuance of an order under subparagraph (i) or subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (3) does not himself occupy it or, if possession was obtained by him for his family in pursuance of an order under sub-paragraph (i-a) of paragraph (a) of 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 subparagraph (iv) of paragraph (a) of sub-section (3), his son does not occupy it for 10 C.R. No. 696 of 2010 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 building under sub-paragraph (iii) of the aforesaid paragraph (a) 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 he shall be restored to possession of such building or rented land and the Controller shall make an order accordingly.” From the perusal of sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, it is clear that safeguard is provided by the Legislature, if landlord or his family for whose benefit eviction was obtained, fails to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months from the date of obtaining possession or where he 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 and direction that he shall be restored to possession of such building. In view of the safeguard provided under the Act, there is one more reason 11 C.R. No. 696 of 2010 to presume that the need of the landlord is genuine and bona fide. In the opinion of this Court landlord has successfully proved his bona fide need. There seems to be no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority on question of bona fide requirement. The question of opening of the door thereby diminishing the utility and value of the property is not being dealt with in view of the fact eviction of the tenant is confirmed on the ground of bona fide need. Present petition is dismissed. However, thirty days’ time is granted to the tenant- petitioner to hand over the vacant peaceful possession to the landlord. September 08, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 12