IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.8329 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.12.2010 Harjeet Singh ....Petitioner Versus Parveen Mahajan ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Baldev Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated 12.5.2010 and that of the Appellate Authority dated 18.11.2010. The petitioner faced eviction proceedings pursuant to a petition initiated by the respondent under the provisions of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on two grounds : i) non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1.7.2006 till 31.8.2007; and ii) that the demised premises were required by the respondent-landlady to settle in Panchkula where her son intended to start the business of computers. The respondent pleaded that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in House No. 437, Sector 6, Panchkula in the year 2002 at C.R.No.8329 of 2010 (O&M) -2- the monthly rent of Rs.9,000/- per month with a stipulation that the rent would be increased @ 5% per annum excluding the electricity and water charges. The petitioner did not deny the tenancy but denied that he was in arrears of rent for the period asserted by the respondent-landlady. He averred that he had been paying the rent regularly, sometime by way of cheques and sometime by way of cash. He also denied that the premises were required by the respondent for personal use and occupation. The parties were at contest on the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the premises in dispute on the ground, as alleged in the petition? OPA 2. Whether the present petition is not maintainable in the present form?OPR 3. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition due to his own act and conduct?OPR 4. Whether the petition has been filed according to provisions of law?OPR 5. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the petition?OPR 6. Whether the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from the court?OPR 7. Relief. The learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority accepted the petition filed by the respondent/landlady and ordered the C.R.No.8329 of 2010 (O&M) -3- eviction of the petitioner which is the result of grievance of the petitioner in this revision petition wherein he has questioned the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings on both the issues i.e. regarding non- payment of rent for the disputed period and also that the premises were required for personal use and occupation of the respondent are erroneous. It is contended by him that there is no material worth the name that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for the said period. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the tenancy was oral and the petitioner has been regularly paying the rent as a responsible tenant and thus this ground on which his eviction has been ordered is totally erroneous and the finding is perverse. It is next contended that that the respondent cannot get the premises evicted on the ground that she requires the same for her personal use and occupation as the premises are residential in character and no business can be started from there, and thus the only need which has been expressed by the respondent deserves to be negatived. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned orders and other relevant material which has been shown to the Court during the course of proceedings. The respondent-landlady has specifically pleaded that the petitioner was in arrears of rent from 1.7.2006 to 31.8.2007. It is also her case that the amount of rent was received by her by way of cheques which plea she has sufficiently established by producing the C.R.No.8329 of 2010 (O&M) -4- bank statement which reflected the payment of rent except for the disputed period. Thus the plea of the petitioner that the rent was being paid in cash also and that for the disputed period it was paid in cash stands belied by his own statement. He while referring to his testimony as DW1 stated that he has given the payment of rent by way of cash w.e.f. December 2007. He has thus not been able to sufficiently establish his plea that the rent for the disputed period was paid by cash and that is the reason that it was not reflected by the bank statement of the respondent. There is thus no material from where it can be inferred that the petitioner had actually paid the rent for the disputed period. The respondent-landlady, on the other hand, comes out as a truthful person as she had claimed rent for this period and not for any exaggerated period. Having regard to this, this Court does not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the petitioner is in arrears of rent for the disputed period. In so far as the challenge to the question of personal necessity is concerned, the same also does not merit acceptance. The only plea that has been raised by the petitioner is that the premises being residential in character cannot be used by the respondent- landlady for carrying out a business which is stated in the pleadings and the evidence. I have perused the rent petition and the averments made therein. In para 6 it is stated that she wants to settle her son namely Arpan Mahajan aged 23 years who had recently passed B.Sc. in C.R.No.8329 of 2010 (O&M) -5- Information and Technology and is still idle and wants to shift to Panchkula so that a business of computers could be started for him. Thus by no stretch of imagination can it be construed to be an averment that the residential premises are intended to be used as commercial premises. The only need that has been expressed by the respondent is that she wants to shift to Panchkula in order to settle her son in order to enable him to set up a business of computers. It is evident that the premises are required for settling up a business so that the son of the respondent can venture out in his business. This contention therefore has to be rejected in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary and Co. AIR 2000 Supreme Court 534 observed as under :- “...It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter...” Similarly in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 1998(2) RCR 533, following observations were made :- “14. The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are C.R.No.8329 of 2010 (O&M) -6- satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms of the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.” Further, in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co.Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal and others (2005) 8 SCC 252 it was observed as under :- “.......It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad therefore, it is not genuine need. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business......” The last contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the premises are unlikely to be used for the intended purpose. I am not inclined to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason that the C.R.No.8329 of 2010 (O&M) -7- provisions of the Rent Act provide adequate and sufficient remedy to a tenant in the eventuality of a landlord not using the premises for the intended use for which the same have been got vacated. Having regard to the aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity in the orders impugned herein and the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he does not wish to press the present petition and prays for some more time to hand over the vacant physical possession of the demised premises as the time which has been granted by the Court below is only upto 17.1.2011 and this time may not be sufficient for him to make an alternative arrangement. I find the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner justified and accept the same. The petition is thus dismissed as not pressed with the following observations :- i) That the petitioner shall furnish an affidavit before the Rent Controller, Panchkula within a period of three weeks from today undertaking to vacate the premises in question and hand over the physical possession to the respondent on or before 30.4.2011. ii) That the petitioner shall restore the possession of the premises in question to the respondent without damage to the property and he shall not make any alteration or addition to the property and also continue to pay the rent at the agreed rate by the 7th of each month and shall also pay all the arrears, if any, on account of rent or any other terms of the tenancy while furnishing the undertaking, i.e. within three weeks. C.R.No.8329 of 2010 (O&M) -8- iii) That the petitioner shall be bound by the undertaking and any violation thereof shall invite automatic execution of the order of eviction by which the Executing Court on its being apprised of such violation shall order appropriate help including police help to retrieve the possession by the respondent. 20.12.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss