C.R.No.7356 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.7356 of 2011 Date of decision: 30.11.2011 Irpinder Singh .....Petitioner. vs. Smt.Usha Rani and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Rajesh Punj, Advocate, for the petitioner. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is tenant revision petition challenging the order dated 18.4.2009 passed by Rent Controller, Yamunanagar ordering eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity and the order dated 23.9.2011 of the Appellate Authority dismissing his appeal against the aforesaid . As per the facts which are emerging out from the impugned orders, the respondent landlord filed the instant ejectment petition against the petitioner on the ground of non payment of rent and that the same are required for personal necessity as he had retired on 31.3.2003 and wanted to shift in the house in question. Upon notice, the petitioner admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and had paid the rent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month upto 31.10.2003. The petitioner also deposited the arrears of rent with effect from 1.11.2003 to 31.1.2004 at the rate of Rs.600/- per month in the Court. It was also averred that the petitioner does not require the house in question for personal necessity. After hearing learned counsel for the parties the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of non C.R.No.7356 of 2011 2 payment of rent and personal necessity. The relevant part of the order of Rent Controller reads thus:- “ Now the question arises for determination is whether respondent has already paid the rent for the period 1.11.2000 to 31.8.2003 claimed by petitioner or not ? Though respondent has stated that he has already paid the rent for the period in question to the petitioner, but there is no cogent evidence on the case file in the form of rent receipt etc. to establish and prove that respondent has actually paid the rent of the petitioner for the period claimed in the petition. Respondent has also relied upon the copy of petition filed by him under Section 6-A of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act Ex.R1 along with orders Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 in order to prove the payment of rent of the house in question, however, perusal of such documents would show that respondent had deposited the rent only for a period of three months i.e. from 1.11.2003 to 31.1.2004 and not for the period claimed by the petitioner i.e. 1.11.2000 to 31.8.2003. Except the bald statement of respondent, there is nothing on record to show that rent of house in question for the period 1.11.2000 to 31.8.2003 has actually been paid by respondent to the petitioner at any point of time. In these circumstances, it can safely be stated that respondent has not paid the arrears of rent for the period 1.11.2000 to 31.8.2003 in respect of tenanted premises.” “ So far as the plea of petitioner regarding personal C.R.No.7356 of 2011 3 necessity, is concerned, it is worthwhile to mention here that it is not disputed that petitioner has retired from PGI Chandigarh, on 31.3.2003 and he vacated the accommodation provided by the department. Even the fact has also been proved by AW2 Gurdeep Singh,LDC. In order to establish the ground of personal necessity, petitioner besides himself, has examined AW2 Sanjeev Wadhwa, his son, and AW4 Ravi Kumar, who have categorically stated on oath that petitioner requires the premises in question for personal use. Moreover, it is a well settled law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and tenant cannot dictate as to where the landlord should reside. It is the choice of the landlord to choose the place of his residence, which is suitable to him. The bonafide need of landlord includes the need of his family members also. There is sufficient evidence on record, in the shape of testimonies of petitioner AW1 Om Parkash alongwith his son AW3 Sanjeev Wadhwa and realtive AW4 Ravi Kumar to prove the factum that petitioner is in need of the house in question for personal use and occupation. It is always open to the landlord to seek eviction of tenant from the rented premises for his own use and bonafide need. Once it is the specific plea of petitioner that he requires the house in question for personal necessity and no malafide intention has been proved on the part of landlord/petitioner by the tenant/respondent by leading cogent evidence in this regard, then there is nothing to disbelieve his plea.” “Though respondent has stated that during the pendency of this petition, legal heirs of petitioner has sold a portion of house in question to Smt.Poonam Jagga through sale deed dated 23.6.2006 Ex.R4 and as such, they do not require the premises in question for personal use, however, perusal of sale deed Ex.R4 would show that they have sold vacant plot bearing No.530, situated adjacent to house in question bearing No.531. There is no cogent evidence on the case file led by respondent C.R.No.7356 of 2011 4 that petitioner or his legal heirs do not require the premises in question for their personal use. In these circumstances, mere sale of vacant plot by the legal heirs of petitioner does not debar them from seeking ejectment of tenant/respondent from the tenanted premises on the ground of personal necessity. In these circumstances the citations relied upon by counsel for respondent are not applicable to the person case being based on different facts.” “ With these observations, it is held that respondent is liable to be evicted from the house in question on the ground of non payment of rent of the tenanted premises for the period 1.11.2000 to 31.8.2003 as he can be granted time for payment of such arrears of rent, only if he could have tendered any part of such arrears within stipulated period from thedate of his first appearances before the court in this case, but he did not opt to do so, rather made a statement to the effect that he has already paid rent upto 31.10.2003 to petitioner which is not proved on record. Also, respondent is liable to be evicted from the house in question on the ground of personal necessity, as house in question is required by the petitioner for bonafide need and occupation. Accordingly, both these issues are decided in the manner and to the extent indicated above, in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent”. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal observed as under: “ After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, this court has arrived at the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. Om Parkash filed the eviction petition on two grounds viz; non payment of rent and personal necessity. In so far as the ground of non payment of rent is concerned, the rent was assessed at Rs.600/- per month, as per the stand of the tenant. In so far as the period for which it was C.R.No.7356 of 2011 5 held that the tenant had not paid the rent, there is no infirmity in the findings. The onus was on the tenant to prove that he had paid the rent for that period. Except for the bald statement of the tenant, there was no other proof, oral or documentary, on record to prove that the rent had been paid. Even the petition filed under Section 6A of the Act did not show that the rent for this period had been paid. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller on the ground of non-payment of rent. “ In so far as the ground of the demised premises being required by the landlords for their personal use and occupation is concerned, in the considered opinion of this court, the respondent/landlords were able to prove the same. It had duly come on record that Om Parkash had retired from PGI as Senior Lab Technician on 31st of March, 2003. At that time he had his wife, one son and two unmarried daughters who were residing with him in his official accommodation at Chandigarh, his desire to shift his native place at Yamuna Nagar was very natural. The appellant/tenant was residing in a portion of the property owned by Om Parkash. He, therefore, filed the eviction petition. During the pendency of the eviction petition Om Parkash expired. He was not to se the face of his own property. In any case, his legal heirs were brought on record. It was then pleaded by them that they also wanted the premises in dispute. The son wanted to reside there and do some business. The unmarried daughters also had to live there. It was pleaded and proved by the respondent/landlords that a couple of rooms which were in occupation of other tenants were got vacated by them during the pendency of the eviction petition. However, they were successful in proving that the demised premises was required by them for their bonafide use and necessity as the rooms already in their possession were not sufficient for their requirement. It is now settled that a landlord is the best judge of his requirements and the tenant is C.R.No.7356 of 2011 6 no one to dictate terms and conditions to the landlord. It is not open to the tenant to see as to how many members of the landlord family were there and how many rooms would be sufficient for their requirement. Reliance in this regard can be placed Ashwani Kumar and others versus Pardeep Kumar and other (supra) and Sadhu Singh Versus Jatinder Mohan and others (supra).” “ No doubt the need of the landlord should be bonafide and it should not seem to be a total whim,wish or desire. In the present case there is no evidence to suggest that it was mere a wish or desire of the landlord and was not his need. He filed the eviction petition only when he retired from the PGI. I have gone through the pleadings very carefully. There is no such change in the stand which could have been suggested that the landlord had concealed some facts, it has to be borne in mind that originally the petition had been filed by Om Pakrash in September, 2003. The rejoinder/replication was filed in the year 2007 and by that time Om Parkash had unfortunately expired. It was, therefore, pleaded that the rooms in possession of the landlords were not sufficient for their needs. In the considered opinion of this Court, there was no concealment of any facts by the respondent/landlords. In so far as the alienation of the property during the pendency of the eviction petition is concerned, a perusal of the sale deed produced on record by the appellant/tenant shows that only a vacant plot had been sold by the landlords.The alienation of a vacant plot will not affect the merits of the present case at all. The landlords may have been in need of money and they could will have chosen to alienate their own property”. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Authority the present revision petition has been filed. Before this Court counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that from the evidence on record , it has been clearly established that C.R.No.7356 of 2011 7 the respondent/landlord does not want the premises in dispute and in fact it is only a desire to get the tenanted premises vacated and not his need. To elaborate the aforesaid argument learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to site plan Ex.A1 (attached as Annexure P2 with this petition) and has submitted that it has come in evidence that two rooms of the house in dispute were lying vacant and in case petitioner wanted to shift to Yamunanagar after his retirement he could have easily occupied the aforesaid two rooms and thereafter, pursue his petition for ejectment of the petitioner. Having not done so, the respondent landlord has clearly demonstrated that he does not wish to settle at Yamunanagar and it was only his desire to get the demised premises vacated from the petitioner and he does not need the same actually. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit. It is well settled that a landlord is the best judge of his needs and the tenant is no one to dictate terms and conditions to the landlord. In the instant case, both the authorities below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner had retired on 31.3.2003 from PGI as Senior Lab.Technician and at that time he along with his wife and one son and two married daughters was residing in his official accommodation at Chandigarh and he desires to shift to his native place at Yamunanagar. Moreover, during the pendency of the petition the respondent landlord died and his legal heirs were brought on record . It was then pleaded by them that they also wanted the premises in dispute and it had been proved by them that a couple of rooms which were in occupation of the other tenants were got vacated by them during the pendency of the eviction petition and that the demised premises were C.R.No.7356 of 2011 8 required by them for their bona fide need and the present accommodation is not sufficient for their requirement. It may also be pointed out that learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the findings of the authorities below that he had not paid the rent for the period as claimed. Thus, no fault can be found in the findings of the authorities below. I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge November 30, 2011 rk