IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3932 of 2010 Date of decision: 18th August, 2010 Arjun Dev … Petitioner Versus Parkash Devi and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Petitioner-landlord, having lost in both the courts below to cause eviction of the respondents-tenants, has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The landlord sought eviction of the tenants from the demised shop, detailed in the eviction petition, on two grounds. Firstly, that the tenants were in arrears of rent with effect from 1st March, 2004 and secondly, that the shop in question was required by the petitioner-landlord for himself and his grandson, namely Dheeraj Jain, aged 20 years. It was stated that his grandson was unemployed and there was a bonafide personal necessity. The tenants had not disputed the relationship of landlord- tenant and had also made payment of arrears of rent along with costs and interest, as assessed by the Court. Thus, the real issue to be determined by the Courts below was as to whether the ground of personal necessity had been proved or not. It was urged before the Rent Controller, Hisar by the tenants that Civil Revision No.3932 of 2010 earlier grandmother and the mother of Dheeraj Jain had filed eviction petitions against other tenants, namely Kajor Mal and Ved Kumar on the ground of personal necessity. Those eviction petitions were proved on record as Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2. This plea was not accepted by the then Rent Controller vide its judgment Ex.R-3. The respondents-tenants had taken a specific stand that regarding the bonafide need of Dheeraj Jain in respect of the shop in question, this issue cannot be re-agitated. The Rent Controller further held that in another petition filed by the grandmother and mother of Dheeraj Jain for his personal necessity, a shop was got vacated from another tenant, namely Bansi Lal, therefore, that ground will not be subsequently available. The findings of the Rent Controller can be noticed as under: “18. Even otherwise, Premwati wife of Arjun Dev and Prem Lata, mother of Dheeraj, grand-son of petitioner also filed eviction petitions against their tenant Bansi Lal on the ground of personal necessity of Dheeraj Kumar and Yogesh and got the possession of that shop. Ex.R4 is the copy of the petition and in para No.3(d) of the said petition, it has been found pleaded that demised shop is required for the personal use and occupation of the grand-son of the petitioner namely Premwati who are at the age of 19 and 15 years of age respectively. Ex.R5 is the copy of statement of parties recorded in the said petition. Ex.R6 is copy of the compromise effected between the parties vide which the possession of the disputed premises was taken by the petitioner namely Premwati grand-mother of Dheeraj Kumar and Yogesh from their tenant Bansi Lal. Ex.R7 is the copy of order dated 4.10.02 passed by the Rent Controller, Hisar in the above stated petition Ex.R4.” Furthermore, they also got another shop vacated from the tenants, namely Inder Kumar and Shiv Kumar on the ground of bonafide 2 Civil Revision No.3932 of 2010 requirement of Dheeraj Jain. It will be apposite here to reproduce the relevant portion of findings returned by the Rent Controller: “19. Similarly, Smt. Premwati and Prem Lata again filed, eviction petition against their tenants Inder Kumar and Shiv Kumar on the ground of bona fide requirement of Dheeraj Kumar and they also got the possession of the shop from Inder Kumar and Shiv Kumar. Ex.R8 is the copy of petition and in Para No.3(d) of the said petition, it has been found pleaded that the demised shop is required for the personal use and occupation of grand-sons of the petitioner namely Dheeraj Kumar and Yogesh who are at the age of 19 and 15 years respectively. Ex.R9 is the copy of order passed by the Rent Controller, Hisar in the above stated petition. Ex.R10 is the copy of the statement of the counsel for the petitioner. Ex.R11 is copy of compromise effected between the parties of the petition Ex.R8. Ex.R8 to Ex.11, it has been found mentioned that respondents admitted as correct the ground of ejectment as mentioned in Para No.(b) (c) (d) and (e) of Para No.3 of the eviction application. Meaning thereby that the respondents had vacated the shop in question and had handed over the possession of the same to the petitioners keeping in view the bona fide requirement of Dheeraj Kumar and Yogesh grandsons of the petitioner.” It was the stand of the respondents-tenants that the petitioner was a big landlord, having many shops in the city. The very fact that for the personal necessity of Dheeraj Jain, family succeeded to cause eviction of one tenant, namely Bansi Lal and from another shop of tenants Inder Kumar and Shiv Kumar and the fact that they had pleaded the same ground to cause eviction of third tenant, namely Kajor Mal and Ved Kumar, where they failed on the ground that the shop earlier got vacated from Shiv Kumar was rented out to Shri Ram Agency. Therefore, the same ground could not be pleaded for causing eviction of the tenants 3 Civil Revision No.3932 of 2010 from the fourth shop, especially when the landlord himself was aged more than 75 years. In view of these findings returned by the Rent Controller, which have been affirmed by the appellate authority, counsel for the petitioner-landlord failed to cut much ice, and could not justify the ground of personal necessity in view of the conduct of the petitioner-landlord. Thus, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 18, 2010 rps 4