IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7439 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 16th November, 2010 Om Parkash … Petitioner Versus Jaswant … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the caveator-respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Jai Dayal instituted an eviction petition against the petitioner- tenant, who was carrying on a Dhaba in the shop situated in Apna Bazar Rewari, near Bus Stand Haryana Roadways, Rewari. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the year 1972 at a monthly rent of Rs.250/- plus house tax. The landlord instituted eviction petition on following three grounds: (a) The tenant was in arrears of rent since 1st January, 2003; (b) The building being non-commercial was rented out for doing business of Halwai, but in the year 2003, the tenant started non-veg hotel without the consent of the landlord, which amounted to change of user; (c) Lastly, it was pleaded that the shop in question was required for personal need of Omwati, daughter-in-law of the landlord, who had been conducting her business in her residential house, as no shop was available. She was having two agencies, namely of Nerolack Paints and Asian Paints and she had taken a temporary godown for storage. Civil Revision No.7439 of 2010 (O&M) The eviction petition further stated that the landlord had got four shops vacated in the year 1972 for the personal use of sons of the landlord. The Rent Controller, Rewari held that the ground of non- payment of rent was no longer available to the landlord, as the rent was tendered on the first day. It was further held that since the shop in question was let-out for doing the business of Halwai, preparation and selling of non-veg items amounted to change of business, as it was not ancillary to the business of Halwai. The Rent Controller further held that Omwati, daughter-in-law of the landlord was a graduate and was well versed with the business of paints. She had obtained two agencies, i.e. Nerolack Paints and Asian Paints and for running of her business, the shop in question was required, as the daughter-in-law was dependent upon the landlord. Thus, the eviction petition was accepted vide order dated 9th March, 2009. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Rent Controller, Rewari, the petitioner filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the landlord died, as he was aged about 85 years. The appellate authority reversed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller regarding change of user, however, it affirmed the findings regarding personal necessity. Hence, the present revision petition. Mr.Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has made following submissions: (i) In his cross-examination, the landlord has admitted that one Parveen was inducted as a tenant two years before making of the statement in the Court; (ii) The landlord admitted that he was carrying on his restaurant under the name of Ujala Restaurant in the adjoining shop. It 2 Civil Revision No.7439 of 2010 (O&M) is stated that after the death of landlord, that shop has fallen vacant and therefore, the daughter-in-law of the landlord can run her business of paints from that shop and therefore, there is no need to get the shop in question vacated. (iii) In no way it can be construed that daughter-in-law of the landlord was dependent upon the landlord, as her husband was running a separate independent business. I have given my thoughtful consideration to all the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. These are to be rejected for the following reasons: (a) In the cross-examination, a stray line has emerged that one Parveen was inducted as a tenant two years ago. After making this gain in the cross-examination, the same was not taken to further logical conclusion. In the cross-examination, the counsel opted not to pursue this line. In which shop Parveen was inducted? In which vicinity that shop is situated? Whether that shop is appropriate for running the business of paints?, nothing was asked. Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to assume that the shop, in which Parveen was inducted, will oust the personal necessity of daughter-in-law of the landlord for running the business of paints. (b) The second submission made by counsel for the petitioner that after the death of landlord, the premises from where Ujala Restaurant was being run by the landlord has become available, also cannot be accepted as the business of Restaurant, being a family business, can be run by the three sons of the landlord jointly. It does not lie in the mouth of the 3 Civil Revision No.7439 of 2010 (O&M) tenant to say that the landlord should close his business and provide the shop to the tenant. (c) Lastly, the argument that daughter-in-law was not dependent upon the landlord, cannot be accepted in the Indian social milieu. It is not only the financial dependency, which is to be construed. One is always dependent upon the family for emotional and day-to-day needs. In the family, if daughter-in- law is carrying on a business, it cannot be said that her father-in-law will not make the shop available to her, which is owned by him. At this stage, Mr.Sharma has stated that size of the shop in question is 9 x 8 feet, therefore, it is not appropriate for daughter-in-law of the landlord to run paints business therein. It has already come in evidence of the landlord that his daughter-in-law is having a godown for storage therefore, it can be assumed that the shop in question is only required for use as a sales counter. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention raised by counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Hon’ble the Apex Court in ‘Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal’ AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2256 to contend that even though, the term ‘for his own use’ is to be given wider, liberal and practical meaning, still the daughter-in-law will not fall within the definition of ‘family’. This argument, in itself is retrograde and is not in consonance with the modern times. It has been specifically held in Joginder Pal’s case (supra) as under: “23. … … … The requirement of a member of the family or of a person on whom the landlord is dependant or who is dependant on the landlord can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord for his own use. In the several 4 Civil Revision No.7439 of 2010 (O&M) decided cases referred to hereinabove we have found the pari materia provisions being interpreted so as to include the requirement of the wife, husband, sister, children including son, daughter, a widowed daughter and her son, nephew, coparceners, members of family and dependents and kith and kin in the requirement of landlord as ‘his’ or ‘his own’ requirement and user. Keeping in view the social or social-religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be, obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of the landlord. … … …” To say, in the modern times, that daughter-in-law is alien to the family and she should not be treated as a member of the family, cannot be accepted. The time has come that daughter-in-law should be treated as a daughter of the family. Taking totality of the circumstances into consideration, there is no merit in the present revision petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 16, 2010 rps 5