76 1 CR Noe 4058 of2007and CR No6285 of2008 1 L IN THE MIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 82HARYANA CHANDIGARH CR No 4058 of2007 and CR Noe6285 of2008 Date ofdecision January JasbirSingh eleeee Petitio ne r Versus JalandharExervicemen MlT ltd 1 2espondent 0 CORAMl HONBLE MR JUSTlCE K KANNAN 0 I Present Mr M L Sarin Sr Advocate with C5 Ms Himani Sarin Advocate I for thepetitioner r Z Mr Arun Jain Sr Advocate with Mr Amit Jain Advocate for the I 3 8 314 KKannan W2 1e Of the lhree grounds of evlCtIOn nalllelyi non Z of rent ii9 pcrsonaluse and iiiomaterial the Rent Controllcr acccptedthe COnlClltionof landlord as thc clailn for personal neccssityalone 1nappcalbeforcthe Aploellalc Authoritythe Rcnt Coiltrollers Iindltlg was upset on theobservatlonthat the Tribunal had bccn indeed swayedby thc dccreaselll ltlCOme of the petltioncr as shown in thc income lax rclums as ustifyingher claim for personal to the propertyIor startinga new business 13ut to lhc Appellate Authoritylhc Iandlord had beerjearnino lllOre than Rs 21acs per nlonth and therc was no nccessily for her to obtain thc property The Appcllate Authorilyhad oeen particularly critical of thc bona Iides of thc Iandlord lll Il . uma 2012.08.22 14: 33 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 1 CR No 4058 of2007and CR Non6285of2008 2 Vlew ofthe fact that the siteplandepicted theavailability ofa largerponion of the vacant area inuch more than what was necessaryand what the tenant hadactuallybeen in ofand thereforeeven if the landlord wanted to start a fresh business the existingvacant propertyavailable with the landlord was sufflcient The inaterialavailable according to theAppellate Authoritywas indicative of the whimsical and fanciful desire to throw out an honest and bona11detenant Adverting to thc status of the tenant tllc 02D AppellateAuthorityheld that it was not tnerelyan individual tenant but a 0 C CooperativeSocietycatering to the needsof the Exservicemen as the I C5 monikerset out in the cause title and theneedsofsuch a tenant to I remaln lll possession could not be keptout ofreckoning Z 2 Civil Revision No 6285 of 2008 wasin regard to another portionof the property over which the landlord had claimed I for the sanle need as set out in the earlier rent control o8 r1 and the Rent Controller as well as the AppellateAuthorityfound the S7 personalnecessity ofthe Iandlord as havingbeen establishedand granted Z Clm OVtctlon m favour of the landlord The AppellateAuthorityhad been invited to the decision of the Rent AppealNo of 2005 but the Appellate Authoritvheld that a decision at another case ofadjoinoropertydid not constitule res judicata and that a tenant could not derive any beneflt by direction in the judgment to secure a silnilar verdict the claim for for the propertybythe landlord was upheld andthe tenant in respectof the adjoining land is a revision petitioner in CR No62850f2008 3 Thelay out map of plotNo 22 had been produced bythe landlord but it was not cxhibited as evidence Thoughthe counsel for . uma 2012.08.22 14: 33 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 78 1 1 CR Noe 4058 of2007and CR Noe6285of2008 3 the revision petitionerhad arguedthat a doculnent which had not been as a materialevldencecould not be relied on cited and referredto a decision of this Court in Gurmail Sineh Vs Balbir Sineh 1968 PLR 443 the documentswhlch are not accepted in evidencecould not be considered bythe Courts adverseby to the lllterest of either of them he later conceded atthe timeof argumentsthat as the document bythe landlord did not contain any defect and the same could be referred to for better 1 01D of the respectivelocation of the property and for 0 CaO tlle of the land and buildingin question Thc I C5 demisedproperty falls within a land area of 25 yardsX 36 yards I approx itnately Z 4 The propertyin question was in a zone markedbythe Iocal authority as for transportbusinessand the landlord had I soughtfor evictlon ofthe prclnises on the groundthat she was intending to 08 rll start a transportbusiness havingretired from her salariedjob in the British vmo Z HighCoinlnission She had adnlittedin thepetitionthat she was not herself well versed with the businessbut she had intendedto avail the service of personsto assisther in the business Her Oedgling incomehad been citcd as one of the reasons for her to break into foraysof business The Renl Controller found on examinationof tbe lncome rcturns that her income had falIen over the years and she was justiflcdIn seekingthe property for her business It rcferredto the dccision of the Supreme Court 111Sarla Ahuia Vs Union of lndia 1998 2 RCR 533 that if the landlord showed a primafacie case for the bona 8des of the thc Rent Controller should proceedwith such of the bona fldes The other decision to the same effect were Joeinder Pal Vs Naval Kishore Ii . uma 2012.08.22 14: 33 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 79 1 1 1 CR No 4058 of2007and CR Noe6285of2008 4 Behal 2002 11 RCR 582 Rakesh Vii Vse Vs Dr Raminder Pal SinPh Sethi 2001 111RCR PSiHl 110 and Dr JS Sodhi Vse Mela Ram 2001 21 RCR 396 P82Hl The AppellateAuthorityfoundthat the income had fallen but she was still earning more than Rs 2 Iacsbyway of rental income of properties and froin othersources 14avingregardto the fact thatthe landlord had indicated that she was desirous to augmenther incotne bystarting a business the Authority went on to examine 0 the factthat the income the landlord was alreadyearning was sufclent and 0 C hencethe reason set out bythepetitioner for a businessdid not I C9 anse I 5 The approach of the AppellateAuthorityin my Z Vlew betrays a complete want of reasonableapproachIt is not for a Court to set that what was theadequate income for a person in order that a person I shouldventure into The entire world of businesswould C Cl come to an end ifthere was ever a Iimit for what a human reckoning could Z consider as sufflcient A statement that the income was fallingand Ll therefore a person was thinkingof starting a businesscannot be extended beyondwhat a nonnal logicin life would extend It cannot be with an artillcial construct that incomecould be thus far and no further I aln not prepared to assess theneedof thelandlord in any way by or otherwiseof the income from the presentsource All that was necessary to make an assessment of the available evidence oughtto be seen whether there was a bona flde need for the landlord to requirethe premises that could be supported through oral and evidence It has been held by the SupreineCourt in Pheroze Bamanii Desai Vs Chandrakant Me Patel and others AlR 1974 SCe 1059that theHigh Court can interfere bJJJ . uma 2012.08.22 14: 33 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 80 1 CR Noe 4058 of2007 and CR NoS285 of2008 5 with a Lower Courts decision in revisionifthe findingoffact constituteda gross of justice The decision was rendered in the context the expressionrequiresunder Section 13 6116glof Bombay Rents Hotel and LodgingIlouse Rates Control Act when it held that the HighCourt cannot reassess the valuc of the evidence and interfere with a flndingof fact inerelybecauseit thinksthatthe of the evidence bythe lower court is wrong and the court should havereached a different 1 OS conclusion offact fromwhat it did Such a reopreciation was possible ifit 0 C was applying a wrong test which the Iaw requiredAnother decision ofthe I C5 Supremc Court in Deena Nath Vse Pooran Lal 2001 151SC 705 that dealt I with the issue of bona fide contained under MadhyaPradesh Z t Accoininodation Control Act 1961and the Supreme Court held that it was l an essential questionof fact and before it found that the Court had not I appliedthe statute to the evidence on record 111its proper perspectivethe ct4 r findingsregarding bona Ilde would be assessedto be a mere a7 Z findingof fact and the HighCourt would be justifiedin with such a finding Sarla Ahuia Vs United India lnsurance CompanvLtd 1999121SC RCR 533 which the Rent Controller had also advertcdto lll paragraph 14 adopts a reasoning that wherethe Iandlordhad asseitedthat he requiredthe buildingfor his own accommodation the Rent Controller oughtto proceedon the that the was bona fide lf the conditions of the clause arc satisfled and the Iandlordshowed a prilna facie case it was upon the Rent Controller to draw a that the requirement of the landlord was a bona de on It is often said byCourts that i1is not for the tenant to dictatetenns to the Iandlordas to how else he can adiusthimself without gettingpossesslonofthetenant Whiledeciding luio . uma 2012.08.22 14: 33 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 81 1 CR No 4058 of2007and CR No6285 of2008 6 the questionof bona fide of the of the landlord ll lS ClUlte to make endeavor as 10 how else the landlord could have hiinself It is precisely this aspcctthat vitiatesthe decision of the Authoritywhich while the issue of bona 6des was to show that the landlordwas earningRs 21acs per year from other sources and there was therefore no need for her to start a business Elsewherein the salne judgmenttheAppellateAuthoritysaid that even for 1 0 runningthe business the propertywas sufflcient While settlingthe 0 C of the landlord the Court said that the vacant space of the I CD propertywas Iargerthan the area lll lhe occupalionof thc tenant and I therefore it should be understood that the landlord could also carry Oll Z business Ill the remaining portion The exact area of on the extent of operations that the landlord was The extent I that a person such an existingtenant could be a inodest Iine of operation o8 r while a landlord may have biggeroutline for the same Iineof business The 7 Jandlords speciflccontention was in a busycommercial hub such Z as and with largeinfrastructuraloutlaysthat the governinenthas been a portionofproperty that fell in the measurement of 30 yardsand 50 yardsWas not in itself a very largepropertybut was just adequateOn the side of tenant lt was pointedout that in the evidence of the landlord she could say exactlyhow much area was givenon rent to the tenanl and that further she had not obtained any sanction planfor the disputedplot as to contend that there were no bona fldes in the requirement ofthe Iandlord lt 1S one thlngto say that the landlord has 110 of her propellybut anotherto say honestly that she cannot recall the exact area that she allowed to be occupiedbythe tenant Againin the . uma 2012.08.22 14: 33 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 82 e CR No 4058 of2007and CR No6285 of2008 7 matter of commencement of business it all on what type of activitleswould be for a Iine of business The petitionhad been filed in the year 2002 and any planof action even without securing evictiOn In our Courtsthat can take more than 61 years beforethat there is any chance for conclusionof would be fertile It wouldbe artificial for a Iandlordto preparea sanctlonedplanfor theconstructlonfora propertythat could beobtainedon evictionat a distant 1 b 3 lengthof time So IongasItlS brought out that the statutory 0 C nainely ofnoIavailabilityofanyotherportionofpropertyin the same area I C5 thatis suitable for the Iandlordsneed theAppellateAuthority was clearly I ln error in the declsion of the Rent Controllerand the approach Z undertaken to examinethe issueon bona fide was clearlycontraryto law For all the reasoningthe decision of the Appellate I in Rent AppealNo 5 of 2005 dated252007 is set aside andthe 06 Civil Revision Petition is allowed For the salne reasoning and for the 3 alreadyadverted to by the Rent ControlIer and the Appellate Z reasons ne Authority in Rent AppealNo 17 of 2005 and Rent Petition No 49 of 2002 Civil Revision No 6285 of 2008 is dismissed The landlord is entitledto obtain eviction of the respectlve premises as soughtfor in the respective petitionsTilne for eviction is granti as two lnonths It is stiblnittcdbythe counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord that the tenant is still 111arrearsof rent and that the benefit of time grantedby the Court should be subiectto the condition that the respective tenantshall pay the arrears of rent The pleais reasonableand l direct that theperiodof two months which is givenfor vacatingthepremiseswill be available for the tenant only on the condition that the tenant shall pay the 1 . uma 2012.08.22 14: 33 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 83 CR No 4058 of2007and CR Noe6285of2008 8 arrearsof rent as due on todayand will continue to pay till he vacates the premises If thereis any defaulton the partof the tenant the order of stay shall standvacated withoutany furtherreferenceto the Court The arrears ofrent shall bepaidwithin one week from the dateofreceipt of the order The tenant shall continueto pay rent beforethe 7 dayof every calendarmonth 1 K KANNANI JUDGE 1 January162009 0 archana 0 Qlp2t45 3 I 2 t164 1 C5 f ce c c2 58 J c 4 7 ef 5 Z et6 e v r4 It tr 08 f11 7 2 Il 8It 77 1 . uma 2012.08.22 14: 33 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document