IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.3780 of 2009 Date of Decision: 5.7.2010 Shri Parkash Asharam School, Katra Khazana,Amritsar. ....... Petitioner through Ms.Indu Bali, Advocate for Shri B.R.Mahajan,Advocate. Versus Shri Parduman Dass @ Parduman Lal and another. ....... Respondent no.1 through Ms.Deepali Puri, Advocate. None for respondent no.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This is a revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 (for short, `the Act') by the tenant impugning judgments dated 2.11.2004 and 15.5.2009 passed respectively by the Rent Controller, Amritsar and the Appellate Authority, Amritsar vide which its ejectment from the premises in question has been ordered and the appeal filed by it against that order has been dismissed. Respondent no.1- landlord preferred a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking eviction of the petitioner and respondent no.2-Shri Moti C.R.No.3780 of 2009 -2- .... Ram Bhardwaj from the premises in question on the grounds of non- payment of rent, sub-letting and personal necessity. It was pleaded that the demised premises, which is owned by respondent no.1 was let out to respondent no.2 at a monthly rent of Rs.92/- with effect from 1.12.1969; that initially the tenancy was oral, but subsequently rent note dated 17.2.1970 was executed in that regard; that respondent no.2 failed to pay the rent and was in arrears with effect from 1.7.1993; that he had sublet and assigned the tenancy rights in favour of the petitioner-school without the permission of the landlord; that now the demised premises was required by respondent no.1 for his own use and occupation as he intends to open a school therein; and that he does not own any other building in Amritsar nor has he vacated any other residential or commercial premises in the urban area of the city after the commencement of the Act. Upon notice, the petitioner and respondent no. 2 filed their separate written statements contesting the petition. It was denied by respondent no.2 that the tenancy was created in his personal capacity,but pleaded that it was only the petitioner-school which had taken the building in question on rent and he being the Principal thereof had signed the rent note. The existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between him and respondent no.1 was, thus, denied. It was averred that respondent no.2 has since retired from the service of the petitioner-school in the year 1993 and, therefore, he was not in the knowledge as to whether the rent was paid or not. It was denied that respondent no.2 was in arrears of rent with effect from 1.7.1993 and he had sub-let or assigned the tenancy rights in favour of C.R.No.3780 of 2009 -3- .... the petitioner. The bona fide need of respondent no.1 to occupy the demised premises was also denied. In its written statement, the petitioner averred that the demised premises was taken on rent in the year 1952 by Shri Ram Parkash Sharma for running a school from father of respondent no.1, namely, Shri Durga Dass Mehra; that respondent no.2 was its employee; and that the alleged rent note was false, bogus and was a result of connivance of the landlord and respondent no.2. It was further averred that Shri Ram Parkash Sharma died in the year 1969 and the tenancy rights were inherited by the present manager of the petitioner-school, namely, Shri Jugal Kishore being the son of the original tenant. The rate of monthly rent was, however, admitted to be Rs.92/-, but it was denied that the same was not paid. Thus, it was pleaded that there was no sub-letting of the demised premises by respondent no.2 in favour of the petitioner. It was further pleaded that the demised premises was a commercial building which could not be got vacated. The bona fide requirement of the landlord to occupy the demised premises was also denied. The petitioner had tendered the alleged arrears of rent with effect from 1.7.1993 to 30.9.1996 on the first date of hearing along with interest and costs, but the landlord did not accept the tender and, therefore, the same were deposited with the Rent Controller. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondent no.1 is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.7.1993?OPA C.R.No.3780 of 2009 -4- .... 2. Whether the respondent no.1 has sublet the demised premises to respondent no.2 without the consent of the petitioner?OPA 3. Whether the respondent no.2 is the original tenant under the petitioner in the demised premises?OPR 3.A Whether the applicant needs the demised premises bona fide for his own use and occupation?OPA 4. Relief. After appraisal of entire evidence on record, the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the petitioner and respondent no.2 from the demised premises and directed them to hand over the vacant possession thereof to respondent no.1 within a period of two months. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 15 of the Act which has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority giving rise to the instant petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the demised premises is residential in nature and, therefore, even if the plea of respondent no.1 was accepted that he required it for his own personal use, the same cannot be used for commercial purposes. He further contended that there was nothing on record to suggest that respondent no.1 was in a position to set up a school even if it is assumed that such activities were permissible in the demised premises for the simple reason that he and his children did not have any teaching experience. It was, thus, submitted that the bona fide need of respondent no.1 was not brought out from the C.R.No.3780 of 2009 -5- .... evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 contended that the petitioner cannot question the need of the landlord, who requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation. He further contended that the petitioner-school is being run in the demised premises and, therefore, it is estopped from saying that the building in question cannot be used by respondent no.1 for commercial purposes. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have gone through the record of the Rent Controller which was summoned. A perusal of rent note, Exhibit-RX, reveals that the premises in question was leased out to respondent no.2 by respondent no.1-landlord for running a school. The relevant portion of this document when translated into English reads as under:- “I, Sh.Moti Ram Bhardwaj son of Sh. Nand Lal Bhardwaj, am a resident of Katra Khazana, Amritsar. I, the tenant, had taken entire portion of a Pukhta building bearing No.1090/C-5 situated at Katra Khazana, Amritsar from its owner namely, Sh.Parduman Dass son of Sh. Durga Dass, Mehra, resident of Gali Ranjhewali, Katra Khazana, Amritsar as per verbal agreement on rent @ Rs.92/- (Ninety two rupees) per month for a period of 11 months w.e.f. Ist December,1969 for the purpose of running a school. I have taken the possession of the same. Now, the conditions of the said verbal agreement are being reduced into writing. C.R.No.3780 of 2009 -6- .... (1)That I would keep on making the payment of fixed rent to the owner every month by getting an entry made on the back of this document or against a receipt otherwise the payment would not be taken into account. (2) In the event of non-payment of rent of any month, I would be liable to be evicted from the building. (3) I would not sublet this property to any other person in any circumstances. (4) I would not make any alteration or renovation without permission of the owner. (5) That there is electricity connection in the said property and I would be liable to pay the electricity charges in addition to the abovesaid rent. (6) That in case the owner requires the said property, he can get the same evicted by issuing a written notice of one month in advance and I would be liable to deliver the possession to its owner. Similarly, I can also vacate the said property by intimating the owner one month in advance. Therefore, this rent deed has been got scribed at Amritsar so that it may serve as an authority.” From the above reproduced extract of the rent note, it is abundantly clear that the premises in question was taken on rent by respondent no.2 and that the petitioner was nowhere in picture. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner had pleaded that the said rent note is a bogus C.R.No.3780 of 2009 -7- .... document, but no evidence was led by it to prove this fact. Rather, the rent note was duly proved by respondent no.1. The petitioner as well as respondent no.2 also failed to prove their other averments and, thus, the plea of respondent no.1 that the premises in question was sublet by respondent no.2 in favour of the petitioner stood established by way of oral as well as documentary evidence. In so far as the bona fide need of respondent no.1 to occupy the premises in question for his personal use and occupation is concerned, it was also proved. He has been successful in establishing his intention to set up a school in the demised premises. The contention of the petitioner that the premises in question are residential in character and, therefore, respondent no.1 cannot use the same for setting up a school cannot be accepted for the simple reason that a school is already in existence in the building which the landlord wants to get vacated. It is not conceivable how such a contention can be raised when the petitioner-school is running in the premises in question. Therefore, the manager of the petitioner-school cannot object to the same activities intended by respondent no.1. That apart, the petitioner is a sub- lettee and cannot question the intention of the landlord to indulge in commercial activities for the simple reason that if the law prohibits running of a school in the residential premises, then it is he who is answerable and it does not have locus to say that the demised premises are residential in character and commercial activities are prohibited therein. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the revision C.R.No.3780 of 2009 -8- .... petition and the same is dismissed. The petitioner shall hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to respondent no.1 within two months from today. July 5,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge