C.R. No. 5639 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5639 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.3.2009 M/s Bajaj Associates and others ....Petitioners versus Vinod Kapoor and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Sood, Advocate, for the respondents. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition was dismissed on 8.8.2008 by way of detailed order by holding that the learned Rent Controller as well as appellate authority on appreciation of evidence had rightly come to the conclusion that need of respondent/landlords was bona fide. The respondent/landlords had sought eviction of the petitioners from SCO No. 25, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, as they intended to run their stationery business from the demised premises. During the pendency of eviction petition, second floor of building in Sector 17, Chandigarh, belonging to the respondent/landlords was vacated by the Government. C.R. No. 5639 of 2006 (O&M) -2- However, as the second floor was not sufficient for running of stationery business, even otherwise stationery business was to be run from SCO No. 25, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, and not from Section 17, where the second floor was vacated, the same was rented out by the respondent/landlords. In the written statement filed to the eviction petition, a specific stand was taken by the petitioner/tenants that the requirement of respondent/landlords was not bona fide, as after the filing of the petition, the respondents had rented out second floor of building in Sector 17, Chandigarh, to a tenant. This plea was taken by way of amendment of the written statement before the learned Rent Controller. Reply to the amended written statement was filed, wherein stand was taken by the respondent/landlords that vacation and leasing out of the premises i.e. second floor in Sector 17, Chandigarh, had no affect on their requirement, as the second floor in Sector 17 was not suitable for running the business of stationery. Even though, the fact of letting out of second floor in Sector 17 was within the knowledge of the tenants, and plea was also taken, however, during the pendency of revision petition, the petitioner/tenants moved a civil miscellaneous application No. 4705-06-CII of 2008 for leading additional evidence by way of placing on record the lease deed dated 9.4.2001 Annexure P-1. The said application was considered at the time of disposing of civil revision petition, and the application was dismissed by recording a detailed order, operative part of which reads as under: - "The factum of letting out the second floor was duly C.R. No. 5639 of 2006 (O&M) -3- pleaded by the petitioners before the learned Courts below and has been taken note of while allowing the petition filed by the respondents, hence, there is no occasion for the petitioners now to place on record the copy of lease deed especially when the factum of letting out of second floor is not in dispute. Similarly, it is not disputed that the respondent-landlords are running business of stationery. Rather the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted as the petitioners wanted to shift the stationery business to demised presmises." The petitioners challenged the order passed on 8.8.2008 by way of civil appeals No. 6880-6881 of 2008. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to dispose of the appeals by passing the following order: - "Leave granted. One of the points which arises for determinaton in these Civil Appeals is that the landlord has let out part of the second floor premises during the pendency of the suit which aspect has not been gone into by any of the Courts below. It is the case of the tenant that question of bona fide personal need of the landlord did not arise as the landlord had let out part of the second floor premises on lease during the pendeny of the suit. Since none of the Courts below have decided this issue, we with consent, take on record the lease dated 9th April, 2001 and request the High Court to look into that aspect of the case and give its finding as to the effect of the said lease created during the pendency of the suit on the question of bona fide requirement raised by the landlord in the Eviction Suit. The High Court is requested to hear and dispose of the matter within a period of six months." In pursuance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme C.R. No. 5639 of 2006 (O&M) -4- Court, as referred to above, the matter has been reconsidered. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has reiterated that the question of bona fide personal need of respondent/landlords did not arise, as the landlords had let out part of second floor of premises on lease during the pendency of eviction petition and, therefore, the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as appellate authority deserve to be set aside. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It may be noticed that the lease deed Annexure P-1 had no effect on the bona fide need of the respondent/landlords inasmuch as the eviction of the petitioners was sought from SCO No. 25, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, and not from the premises in Section 17, Chandigarh, the second floor of which was leased out during the pendency of the eviction petition. It is further pertinent to mention here that the application moved by the petitioners for leading additional evidence for placing on record Annexure P-1 was rejected by this Court by way of detailed order, operative part of which has been reproduced above. It is further pertinent to notice that the factum of letting out the premises was considered by the learned Rent Controller and appellate authority, and the application for additional evidence for placing on record Annexure P-1, was dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court feels that Annexure P-1 did not, in any way, affect the bona fide requirement of respondent/landlords for eviction from SCO No. 25, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, which stood duly proved by leading cogent C.R. No. 5639 of 2006 (O&M) -5- evidence. For the detailed reasons given hereinabove, and as given in order dated 8.8.2008, there is no merit in the present revision petition, which is accordingly ordered to be dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 19, 2009 R.S.