IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4538 of 2006 Date of decision: 10th December, 2008 Gobind Ram … Petitioner Versus Gopal Krishan Gupta … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Anil Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.L. Batta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mandeep K. Sajan, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) One Gopal Krishan Gupta son of Shanti Saroop succeeded to 10 shops from his father, which form part of property No.213/2, Bazar No.2, Ferozepur Cantt, known as Shanti Saroop Market, Ferozepur Cantt. It is admitted that the site plan, which has been exhibited as Ex.A-3, in earlier round of litigation against other five tenants of the shops, has been approved upto the Hon'ble Apex Court. The plea of landlord is that after demolishing these five shops, computer centre is to be built in accordance with the site plan (Ex.A-3). Ten shops bear Nos.1 to 10. It is stated that earlier, eviction proceedings were instituted qua shop No.1, 4, 5, 8 and 9, and those tenants were evicted in pursuance of order passed by Rent Controller, which were upheld by the appellate authority and affirmed by this Court exercising revisional jurisdiction. The SLP filed against these orders was also dismissed. Civil Revision No.4538 of 2006 Challenge before this Court is to the statement of the landlord that filing of present four eviction petitions qua shop No.2, 3, 6 and 10 is not made out as in the previous statement, landlord admitted that he has not filed eviction petition against tenants in shop No.2, 3, 6, 7 and 10, as they had promised to vacate the premises after eviction of tenants from shop No.1, 4, 5, 8 and 9 is ordered. It will be pertinent to mention here that tenant from shop No.7 has already vacated the shop voluntarily. In this context, it will be apposite here to notice the brief facts of the case from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led and taking into consideration rival submissions made by counsel for the parties. Gopal Krishan Gupta filed a petition for eviction against Gobind Ram, who was tenant in shop No.10. It was stated therein that Gobind Ram is a tenant at monthly rent of Rs.200/- including water tax and house tax. It was further stated that the landlord was unemployed and that he has to start his own business of computer centre in the demised premises along with other portion of house No.213/2, Bazar No.2, Ferozepur Cantt. It has been stated in para 3(a) of the eviction petition that other portion of house No.213/2, Bazar No.2, Ferozepur Cantt is in occupation of Sarvshri K.K. Gupta, Manjit Singh, Mahabir alias Inderpal, Kaidar Nath, Pawan Kumar, Ashoka, Rajinder Mittal and Gobind Ram besides shop No.4 was vacated by Patras on 13th December, 1997 by making statement before the Rent Controller, Ferozepur for converting the whole of the building in a big hall for the said purpose, i.e. establishment of computer centre. It was further stated that applicant had already made a correspondence with M/s Lakhotia Computer Centre, Calcutta and got prepared the site plan and got approved the said site plan on 6th August, 1996. It was further averred that landlord had deposited Rs.10,000/- with the said Centre out of Rs.2,65,000/- as agreed between the landlord and 2 Civil Revision No.4538 of 2006 M/s Lakhotia Computer Centre, Calcutta. It seems that landlord wanted to run franchise centre of M/s Lakhotia Computer Centre, Calcutta. It has been further stated that whole of the demised premises was to be converted into Computer Room, Lecturer Hall and Administrative Block/ Hall in order to start the said business of computer centre. It was further stated that the upper portion of the demised premises will be converted into a residential portion. In para 3(c), it was stated that earlier ejectment petition was filed against K.K. Gupta, Ashoka, Rajider Mittal, Kaidar Nath and Patras. At that time, respondent Jai Parkash along with Mahabir alias Inderpal occupier of shop No.3, Manjit Singh occupier of shop No.2, Gobind Ram occupier of shop No.10 and Pawan Kumar occupier of shop No.7, as tenants, had promised to the landlord to vacate the premises in their occupation as and when asked by the landlord. To the above said eviction petition, written statement was filed. Relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. Rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month was also admitted. In reply to para 3(a) of the eviction petition, it was stated that it is true that names of the tenants are correct. It was further admitted that Patras had vacated the shop No.4 in his possession. Rest of the averments were denied that a big hall is to be built or offer has been made to obtain franchise. It was further stated that there is not much of business of computer in the small town of Ferozepur. In reply to para 3(c), it was admitted that it is correct that landlord filed ejectment petition against K.K.Gupta, Ashok Kumar, Rajinder Mittal and Kidar Nath. It was denied that respondent Jai Parkash along with Inderpal and Manjit Singh, had agreed to vacate the respective portions. It was further admitted that ejectment orders have been passed against those persons, against whom earlier eviction petition was filed. 3 Civil Revision No.4538 of 2006 The Rent Controller, in case of Gobind Ram and Jai Parkash, held that their eviction is called for, as personal necessity of running a computer centre is made out and ordered their eviction. Against that order, an appeal was filed. Appellate authority also concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller. Mr. Anil Malhotra appearing for the petitioner tenant has assailed the findings of two Courts below on the following grounds: (a) That the two courts below have not taken into consideration the statement (Ex.R-1) of the landlord recorded in earlier eviction proceedings, where he had stated as under: “… … … I filed an ejectment application against Rajinder Mittal, one of my tenant. It is correct that my statement was recorded in that case and I was cross- examined by Mr.AK Joshi, Adv. counsel for respondent. It is also correct that in the said statement I stated that I had filed five ejectment applications and have only filed five and not against all. Volunteer, because the other tenants agreed to vacate their premises as and when ejectment order is passed against those five tenants. It is also correct that in the said statement I stated that two shops are situated on platform which does not effect me for the construction of the computer centre and other three tenanted premises are not required by me for the computer centre. The two shops which are platform are in possession of Inder Pal and the second shop is in possession of Manjit Singh and the other three tenants against whom I did not file ejectment applications previously in the year 1996 were Gobind Ram, Jai Parkash and Pawan Kumar. These five persons promised to vacate their shops at the time of ejectment of other five tenants. I did not mentioned in my ejectment application or in my statement recorded in the Court in the case against Rajinder Mittal that the above said five persons promised me to vacate the 4 Civil Revision No.4538 of 2006 same after ejectment of other five tenants. Volunteer, I had this fact in my mine so I did not expressed the same in the Court. It is incorrect that no tenants promised me to vacate five shops. Certified copy of my statement recorded in the Rajinder Mittal case is Ex.R1. I have not prepared any accounts of my centre till date. It is incorrect that there is no centre in the name of Lakhotia Computer Centre. It is incorrect that I never purchased any computer till date. Two persons came for admission in my centre namely, Raman and Aman but they left about three months back. I do not know their father’s name or their addresses. I did not charge anything from them. I have not prepared any attendance register. I have not taken any training in any computer centre. Volunteer, I attended the conferences in Delhi but I have no proof in this regard. It is incorrect that I have no knowledge about computer. I do not know till today about the functioning of computer. It is incorrect that I have permanently settled in Delhi or I have no intention to do any business at Ferozepur. It is incorrect that there is no much business of computer in a small town of Firozepur. It is further incorrect that there is no chances of further flourishing the business of computer. Previous ejectment applications were filed by me in the year 1996. I have filed 4 ejectment applications including the present one prior to the finalization of decision of previous five ejectment applications. My mother has also expired. I have no proof today with me to show that I have been recorded as voter in the voter list prior to 1996.” After reading this portion extensively, Mr. Anil Malhotra has contended that landlord is not running the computer centre at the premises. No students are there, therefore, he has failed to run the computer centre in the premises already got vacated. Therefore, the plea of running the computer 5 Civil Revision No.4538 of 2006 centre is nothing but a concocted story to get the tenants evicted from the premises. (b) Mr.Malhotra states that in the cross examination, it has been stated that earlier eviction petition was not filed against the present petitioner Gobind Ram, Jai Parkash and Pawan Kumar, as no necessity was felt and the explanation given by the landlord that they had assured to vacate the premises is nothing but an explanation which is improbable, unnatural and unconvincing, as in Ex.R-1, this was never stated. (c) It has been stated that arguments raised by the petitioner have not been dealt by two courts below. (d) It has been stated that petitioner is unmarried. He has been residing at Delhi. He is a heart patient and therefore, personal necessity of running business of computer centre is not made out. (e) It has been further stated that since landlord lacks requisite qualification and expertise to run a computer centre and is not aware of day to day affairs of a computer centre, therefore also, plea of personal necessity is a ruse and is not made out. Therefore, eviction has been sought not out of need but out of greed. (f) Mr. Malhotra has stated that site plan (Ex.A-3) was also relied in a previous litigation against five tenants and it was stated that there was no need to file eviction petition against the present petitioner Gobind Ram, Jai Parkash, Pawan Kumar, Inderpal and Mahadev. Therefore, landlord is barred and estopped from saying now that these shops are required for constructing a building in consonance with site plan (Ex.A-3). 6 Civil Revision No.4538 of 2006 (g) It has been contended that entire building is 63 feet, 6 inches long and 29 feet in width and shops, which are in possession of the five tenants, are of 8 x 10 feet size. Therefore, without taking possession of these five shops, computer centre can function and run smoothly from the premises, which is in possession of the landlord. (h) It has been stated that in the cross-examination, landlord had admitted that two shops are on the platform as per site plan (Ex.A-3) and as per his earlier statement, they are not required, therefore, in case possession of those two shops is not taken, the shops which are in possession of the petitioner will not be required. To controvert these submissions, Mr.R.L. Batta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Mandeep K. Sajan, has made following submissions: (i) That site plan (Ex.A-3) was earlier also relied in the litigation against five tenants out of ten shops. He states that a perusal of site plan shows that a Conference Hall, Computer Teaching Hall, Administrative Block and Reception Centre are to be built. He states that if pleadings in para 3(a) of eviction petition are taken into consideration, the building in consonance with site plan (Ex.A-3) cannot be built until and unless shops are demolished. (ii) It has been categorically stated by the landlord that he had not filed earlier eviction petition against the remaining five tenants, because they had promised to vacate the premises and out of these five shops, one Pawan Kumar indeed has vacated the shop No.7, adhering to his promise. (iii) It has been stated that since the site plan (Ex.A-3) has been relied in the earlier petitions also, the building proposed to be built, can only be built on the entire plot and since shops are 7 Civil Revision No.4538 of 2006 contagious, therefore all ten shops are required for establishing the computer centre. (iv) It has been further stated that in earlier litigation, two Coordinate Benches of this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court also upheld the need of building computer centre and there can be no deviation from the same and if Ex.A-3 is to be given effect to, all shops are required. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties. Once personal necessity of the landlord has been established in the previous litigation, need of the landlord is to be seen from his perspective and not from the view, which a tenant comprehends. I have also read the portion reproduced above, which has been given by Mr.Anil Malhotra. A stray line of the cross-examination cannot be picked up to demolish the entire edifice of the case. It has been specifically stated by the landlord that he did not file ejectment petition against Gobind Ram, Mahabir alias Inderpal, Jai Parkash, Manjit Singh and Pawan Kumar, as these five tenants had promised to vacate the shops at the time of ejectment of other five tenants. Therefore, it was but natural that the landlord had not opened litigation on all fronts. He believed in the promise made by the present petitioner tenant and therefore, after the promise was not kept, present petition was filed. A perusal of Ex.A-3 and averments made in the ejectment petition and the testimony in the Court prove that site plan (Ex.A-3) cannot be given effect to until all shops are got vacated. Building of Administrative Block, Reception Centre, Computer Teaching Hall and Conference Hall show that this building is to be built up after getting the entire ten shops vacated. On a parting note, it is to be noticed that during the course of arguments, a consensus has been arrived between the counsel for the 8 Civil Revision No.4538 of 2006 parties that the findings given by this Court may not be given effect to and the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the present petition and be allowed to make alternative prayer. It is stated that since petitioner is shop keeper, he require time to find alternative accommodation. Mr. Batta, on instructions from Mr.Mandeep K. Sajan, states that he has no objection if reasonable time is granted to the shop keeper, subject to his filing an undertaking in the Court of Rent Controller that he shall hand over peaceful vacant possession of the shop to the landlord. Since, during the course of arguments, a consensus has been arrived at between the counsel for the parties, this Court ought to attach due sanctity to the consensus arrived at between the parties. Therefore, it is ordered that as prayed by the counsel for parties, petitioner will not be evicted from the demised premises for 1 ½ years commencing from 1st January, 2009, subject to filing an undertaking in the Court of concerned Rent Controller that peaceful vacant possession of the demised premises shall be handed over to the landlord on or before 30th June, 2010. The undertaking shall also contain a condition that entire arrears of rent, if any, shall be deposited or tendered in the Court of Rent Controller on or before 7th January, 2009. The petitioner may also pay the arrears of rent, if any, by way of demand draft. Rent for each following month shall be paid on or before 7th of each following month. In case undertaking is not filed, the landlord shall be at liberty to take recourse to law by filing execution petition. The undertaking be filed on or before 7th of January, 2009. With these observations, as prayed, present revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 10, 2008 rps 9