IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3412 of 2008 Date of decision: 23rd July, 2010 Satnam Singh … Petitioner Versus Bikram Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. S.C. Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner-tenant is aggrieved against the judgment of Rent Controller, Jalandhar dated 14th October, 2006, whereby his eviction was ordered. The findings of the Rent Controller have been affirmed by the appellate authority also vide its judgment dated 22nd May, 2008. The revisional Court, bound by the parameters, cannot travel wholeheartedly with the petitioner-tenant to appreciate the evidence meticulously. Therefore, this Court shall briefly adjudge the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner. The following three submissions have been made by counsel for the petitioner-tenant: (a) The landlord, due to litigation pertaining to succession, has become co-owner, instead of exclusive owner, as the Will propounded by him was not accepted by the Civil Court. Civil Revision No.3412 of 2008 Therefore, he cannot pursue the eviction petition and the subsequent litigation; (b) The landlord had not pleaded essential ingredients provided under the Statute and held to be necessary by a Full Bench of this Court in ‘Banke Ram v. Shrimati Sarasti Devi’ 1977 CLJ (Civil) 71; (c) Lastly, the ground of personal necessity pleaded and proved before both the courts below by the landlord is not bonafide, but is out of the greed. To examine the above said arguments, it will be necessary to give brief resume of facts of the case. On 17th April, 2000, respondent-landlord Bikram Singh instituted an eviction petition, in which it was pleaded that he was a landlord of the demised premises and the monthly rate of rent was Rs.175/-. It was further pleaded that the tenant was paying the rent to the landlord but for the last more than five years, he had stopped the payment of rent, which necessitated the landlord to file the eviction petition, in which the tenant paid the rent on 31st May, 1997. It was further pleaded that son of the landlord has grown-up and to settle him independently, the shop in question was required for his personal necessity. Much ado has been made qua the averments made in para 5 of the eviction petition. It will be apposite here to reproduce the relevant portion of the same, which reads as under: “5. That the petitioner has got no other property of the similar nature as in dispute in the area of Jalandhar, nor he vacated any such property after the commencement of the Act.” 2 Civil Revision No.3412 of 2008 The petitioner-tenant filed written statement, in which he admitted the respondent to be his landlord. It was further stated that the tenant has been regularly paying the rent and he was not a defaulter. The tenant further stated that initially the monthly rent was Rs.100/-, which was increased to Rs.137/- and later-on to Rs.175/-. After conclusion of the pleadings, Rent Controller framed the following issues: (1) Whether the petitioner requires the property in dispute for his own need ? OPP (2) Whether the respondent has damaged the suit property ? OPP (3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to ejectment as prayed for ? OPP (4) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR (5) Whether the present petition is hit by the provisions of Section 14 of the Act ? OPR (6) Relief. The landlord himself appeared as AW-1, examined Dalip Singh Draftsman as AW-2, Jaspal Singh as AW-3 and Harcharan Singh as AW-4. He also produced documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. On the other hand, tenant himself appeared as RW-1, examined Beant Singh as RW-2 and Jatinder Singh as RW-3. The tenant produced documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. The Rent Controller held that the premises was required for the personal necessity, however, since the arrears of rent were paid in Court, the issue regarding non-payment of rent was decided against the landlord. The issue that the tenant had damaged the property was also decided against the landlord. 3 Civil Revision No.3412 of 2008 Aggrieved against the order of Rent Controller, an appeal was filed. The appellate authority also affirmed the findings regarding the personal necessity of the landlord. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) requires that in categoric terms the following pleadings should have been made by the landlord: “(a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession - (i) in the case of a residential building if, - (a) he requires it for his own occupation; (b) he is not occupying another residential building in the urban area concerned ; and (c) he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in the said urban area.” A Full Bench of this Court, in Banke Ram’s case (supra) held that to protect the tenant from the caprice and whim of the landlord to eject him without any fault and sufficient reasons, the above said statutory requirements must be pleaded in the eviction proceedings. In the context of the requirements of law and the interpretation of judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, para No. 5 of the eviction petition, reproduced above, is to be dissected. First part of the same says that the petitioner has got no other property of the similar nature, as in dispute, in the area of Jalandhar and the second part says that nor has he vacated any such property after the commencement of the Act. The law does not require that the exact words ought to be used. Till the words convey the intention and the same is accepted by the Court and a common prudent man, the necessity of the statute is satisfied. Another argument advanced that the shop in dispute was initially owned by Chattar Singh, father of the 4 Civil Revision No.3412 of 2008 respondent-landlord, who had two wives namely Gurdev Kaur and Charanjit Kaur along with the children as natural successors, and the claim of the landlord that he was the sole owner of the shop, which having not been proved before the Civil Court, is to be ruled out of consideration, at best makes him co-owner with his siblings. The Act makes a distinction between an owner and a landlord. For the purposes of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, ‘landlord’ is to be considered. The respondent had let-out the shop to the petitioner. He had been receiving the rent. In earlier ejectment petition also, he received the rent. Therefore, to say that a landlord, who is a co-owner, needs the premises for his personal necessity and the tenant will deny the same on the ground that all the co- owners should first join the hands and then come forward, is to defeat the very purpose for which the ground of personal necessity has been pleaded. Another ancillary argument raised is that when the eviction petition was filed, the landlord had not disclosed that litigation was pending between the co-owners, therefore, for his conduct he should be non-suited. The matter of fact remains that the respondent is a landlord and a co-owner. To fortify this submission, counsel for the petitioner- tenant has relied upon ‘Dr. Avtar Singh v. Ascharaj Lal’ 2002 (2) Recent Civil Reports 0201, to contend that where the family settlement, on the basis of which eviction was sought, was held to be fake, it was held that ejectment petition should be dismissed, as a ground was created for seeking eviction. On facts and circumstances of the present case, this is not applicable. As stated earlier, rent was throughout received by the respondent, who has been rightly termed as a landlord. Another judgment pressed into service is ‘Hirendra Nath Poddar and others v. Sjibendra Nath Paddar and others’ 1979 AIR 5 Civil Revision No.3412 of 2008 (Calcutta) 135 to say that where the brothers hold undivided shares in a premises, a co-sharer can create tenancy but such a tenancy shall be governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and not the Rent Act. In that case, it was stated that it was too late for the plaintiff to argue that defendant No.1 is not his tenant. There the dispute pending was as to who amongst the brothers has to be termed as a landlord. Lastly, reliance has been placed upon ‘Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali’ 2010 (3) Civil Court Cases 001 (SC) to say that the landlord cannot seek partial eviction. This is not a case of partial eviction, as the tenant is sought to be evicted from the shop in his possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that it has come in the cross-examination that earlier, the negotiations were held between the landlord and the tenant, therefore, it should be inferred that the landlord wanted to increase the rent. In the cross-examination, after asking a question as to whether the negotiations were held, which was affirmed by the landlord, it was not broached further. Therefore, it is not known for what purposes the negotiations were held. Be that as it may, both the Courts below have given a finding of fact that the shop was required by the landlord for his personal necessity. Hence, no interference is warranted, while exercising revisional jurisdiction and the present revision petition is hereby dismissed, being devoid of any merit. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 23, 2010 rps 6