Civil Revision No.6126 of 2007(O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6126 of 2007(O & M) Date of decision 31.1.2009. Jasvir Singh Jawanda .....petitioner versus M/s Sidhsons and others .....Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. M. L. Sareen, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Hemani Sareen, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Katherpal, Advocate for the respondents. K. Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The landlord is the revision petitioner. The landlord sought for eviction of the premises on the ground of his personal requirement. The bona fides of the claim of the landlord were sought to be adduced by reference to the fact that a business in automobile refrigeration which he was running at his premises in SCF No.3, Sector-10D, Chandigarh was required to be closed on account of punitive action taken by the Chandigarh Administration for resumption on the ground that the landlord had used the premises for a purpose that was not authorised in a particular zone. The landlord therefore sought eviction of his premises in the hands of the tenant to re-locate his business. The tenant disputed the bona fides of the landlord by pointing out that the landlord had started another business in his own premises. The resumption itself had been effected sometime in the year 1991 and the action taken by the landlord in the year 1999 betrayed lack of bona fides on the part of the landlord. 2. Before the Rent Controller the landlord had placed evidence Civil Revision No.6126 of 2007(O & M) -2- regarding the fact that after undertaking given by him to the Chandigarh Administration that he would stop the business of automobile refrigeration at his premises in SCF No.3, Sector-10D, Chandigarh and his undertaking given in the year 1993, he had begun another business by setting up a recreation hall for pool (billiards) and he had shifted the equipments of refrigeration which were kept in the basement to his own residence. His evidence was that he would shift his business of refrigeration as soon as the property was vacated. The Rent Controller upheld the contention but the appellate Court reversed the decision. While doing so, it adopted three lines of reasoning: (i) the landlord had not produced the document of resumption by the Chandigarh Administration and the so-called decision of the landlord to close down his business. This according to the appellate authority was a strong factor against the landlord; (ii) the landlord's closure of the business at Sector-10D and his commencement of some other business in recreation at the same premises but still looking for eviction for starting the old business shall be understood as a case of additional accommodation which was not permitted under Section 13(3)(i)(a) & (b) of the Act; (iii) the appellate authority also doubted the bona fides on account of its perception that the business in Sector-10D, Chandigarh had better prospects than the requirement of the landlord at the demised premises. All these factors actually made the appellate authority to come to the conclusion that the landlord was merely making a pretext of his requirement for obtaining eviction. The Court found that the need of the landlord was not 'natural, real, sincere or honest'. Referring to decisions cited by counsel on both Civil Revision No.6126 of 2007(O & M) -3- sides, he ultimately went on to allow the appeal. 3. At the appellate Court, having regard to the specific findings rendered by the appellate authority making an adverse inference for not filing the order of resumption and the undertaking given by the landlord, the revision petitioner has filed an application in CM No.22658 of 2007 seeking to produce the order of resumption passed in the year 1992-93. The reception of this document is stoutly opposed by the counsel for the respondent by stating that parameters that have been specified for tendering additional evidence in appeal under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC are not satisfied and there is no justification for filing up a lacuna pointed out by the appellate authority. Further, according to him, the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC are not applicable to civil revision. The reception of documents of the appellate authority becomes relevant only because it is the adverse inference drawn up for such non-production that has affected the perception of the appellate authority to conclude that there was no bona fides. As a matter of fact, the action of the Chandigarh Administration for resumption on account of alleged unauthorised user was stated in the petition and that factum was given as a justification for the landlord to relocate the business to the demised premises. Indeed, without such reference in his petition the landlord could not have even placed a ground for bona fides of his requirement and to seek for eviction. Most significantly, this fact was not ever denied before the Rent Controller and its non-production of the document did not have any bearing. The parties went to trial on an admitted premise that the landlord had perforce to close his business on account of the action by the Administration. The reasoning adopted by the appellate authority was therefore, a matter on which neither Civil Revision No.6126 of 2007(O & M) -4- of the parties joined issues. The document does not seek to prove a disputed fact but brings corroboration to admitted circumstances. 4. The objection of the counsel for the tenant is that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC itself is not attracted and the various Courts in India have adopted a reasoning that the power of the High Court exercising a revisional jurisdiction shall not apply the powers of the appellate authority under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The hair-splitting arguments on such an issue need not detain me in this case. The issue is decided on an admitted premise, even without reference to the documents which are sought to be produced. Consequently, the documents which are sought to be introduced through the application are not taken into reckoning for objections stated by the counsel for the respondent but I have not entered into an adjudication in this case, whether additional evidence could be permitted or not. As a matter of fact, additional evidence proving subsequent events have come only in rent control jurisdictions and such evidence is normally received by this Court and even upto the stage of the Supreme Court. If a circumstance justifies the reception of additional evidence that there can be no fetter to the jurisdiction of the High Court to receive a document in evidence if it shall sub-serve the ends of justice. 5. The residual point in consideration would to test the bona fides of long lapse of time from 1992 to 1999, when he ultimately filed the petition and the landlord had actually been carrying on some other business at the property where he was originally carrying on the automobile refrigeration business. At the petition and in the evidence the landlord had stated that he had been requesting the tenant for vacating the premises and since if did not so happen, he had to file the petition. The learned counsel Civil Revision No.6126 of 2007(O & M) -5- for the revision petitioner has a legal submission to respond with reference to an authoritative pronouncement by a decision of the Supreme Court in Harbans Rai Bansal versus State of Punjab and another in 1996 Supreme Court Page 857, where the expression under Section 13(3)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 that made reference only to the requirement of the landlord for a “residential building” was found as applying to cases of non-residential buildings also. The decision of the Supreme Court really set the stage up for landlords who were met with striff opposition from tenants through various decisions that the landlord could not apply for eviction under Section 13(3) for establishing a business in a residential premise. It was this dilemma that forced the landlord to wait for action against the tenant. Even without taking that as a ground for delay, if the landlord had started another business in the place where he was running on account of the objection from the administration, if he had found over a period of time that if he started the business which was adept at, it cannot be taken as a requirement which is not bona fide. The proof of bona fides of requirement under Section 13(3)(a) cannot be extended beyond what the law specifically requires. The most crucial fetter for eviction would be when the landlord had been occupying any other residential building or if he had vacated such a building without sufficient cause. In this case, the requirement of the premises for establishing his business which he had been running elsewhere in Sector-10D, Chandigarh which he had to close on account of intervention by the administration adequately satisfied the requirements of the law and the decision rendered by the appellate authority reversing the decision of the Rent Controller is in my view erroneous. 6. The decision of the appellate authority is set aside and the Civil Revision No.6126 of 2007(O & M) -6- eviction is ordered, restoring the order passed by the Rent Controller. The civil revision petition is allowed on the above terms but there shall however be no direction as to costs. 7. The counsel for the respondent seeks for three months time for eviction. The plea is accepted and the respondent shall have three months time from the date of the order for eviction. ( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE 31.1.2009 A. KAUNDAL