IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4016 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 27.8.2010 Madan Lal ....Petitioner Versus Harish Kumar ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.R.L.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the respondent. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated 5.12.2007 and that of the Appellate Authority dated 16.7.2008. The respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises, which is a shop, on the ground that he requires the same for his personal use and occupation. The need as expressed was given out to be rehabilitation of his father Balwant Rai, who was earlier a drug addict and after treatment of de- addiction the shop was required for carrying on business of his father. The petition was resisted by the petitioner, who contended that the need of the respondent is not bona fide and that the father of C.R.No.4016 of 2008 (O&M) -2- the respondent was already carrying on business in some other shop at Kotkapura and the plea that he was earlier working at Ferozepur and was required to be settled at Kotkapura is not plausible. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :- (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for eviction of the demised premises on the ground of bona fide requirement?OPP (2) Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR (3) Relief. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority both concluded that the need of the respondent-landlord stood established and ordered the eviction of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the evidence of AW2 Balwant Rai wherein he has stated that he was running business of PCO at Kotkapura and was also running real estate business. He also referred to Form Ex.R-1 to contend that the address given in this form by the respondent while getting admitted for de-addition at Faridkot and as given in the statement are at variance. It is further contended that the need of the respondent is not demonstrated from the material on record and consequently the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent C.R.No.4016 of 2008 (O&M) -3- referred to the remaining portion of the statement of the father of the respondent to contend that he has stated unequivocally that he was earlier carrying on the business at Ferozepur and after de-addition he wanted to rehabilitate himself and set up a shop in the demised premises. He further contended with reference to the same statement that there is an admission that the father of the respondent was running business of real estate at Kotkapura but was unable to do so. After hearing the leaned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit. There is sufficient evidence to show that the respondent wants to rehabilitate his father Balwant Rai in the demised premises. There is no dispute about this fact also that his father was a drug addict and was working at Ferozepur while being engaged in the sale and purchase of cattle. In this view of the situation, when the respondent-landlord is seized of a peculiar problem of his father being a drug addict, his plea that the premises are required to rehabilitate his father cannot be said to be a wishful attempt on the part of the respondent. The Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 1998(2) RCR 533, observed as follows: “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 C.R.No.4016 of 2008 (O&M) -4- bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are 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.” In Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary and Co. AIR 2000 Supreme Court 534 the following observation has been made :- “...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 Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co.Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal and others (2005) 8 SCC 252 it has been 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 C.R.No.4016 of 2008 (O&M) -5- 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......” Consequently, the revision petition is without any merit and is dismissed. The application for additional evidence is also dismissed. 27.8.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss