CR No. 8233 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 8233 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 17-12-2010 Kewal Krishan ....Petitioner VERSUS Charanjit Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner who is a tenant in the demised premises. Originally, the premises belong to one Santokh Singh who is predecessor in interest of the respondent-landlord. Santokh Singh died leaving behind three legal heirs i.e the respondent himself and Gurcharan Singh and Tarlochan Kaur. The other two legal heirs of Santokh Singh namely Gurcharan Singh and Tarlochan Kaur who are the owners to the 2/3rd share of the demised premises sold the same to one Bhagwan Singh who by virtue of the sale has now become a co-sharer with the respondent. The eviction proceedings were initiated by the present respondent against the petitioner on the grounds of non payment of rent and that the premises are required for personal use and occupation of the respondent who wishes to set up a business for his son. The Rent Controller accepted the petition and ordered the eviction of the petitioner. The Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of CR No. 8233 of 2010 (O&M) 2 the learned Rent Controller which is the cause of grievance of the petitioner in this instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even though a petition on behalf of the co-owner is maintainable yet in view of the objection raised by Bhagwan Singh, the instant rent petition could not have been determined in favour of one co-sharer alone, more so when partition proceedings are already pending in a Civil Court and where the petitioner himself is a party and there is a restraint order by the Civil Court to the effect that petitioner shall not relinquish the possession of demised premises to any other person except to the rival claimants in the partition suit. He further contends that there is a gross irregularity committed by the Courts below who have not appreciated these facts and have not appraised the evidence appropriately. He next contends that there is no material to show that he required the premises for personal use and occupation and in such an eventuality such prayer cannot be accepted when partition has not been effected and when rights of Bhagwan Singh and respondent have not been crystalized. It is next contended that the observation of the learned Rent Controller that the arrears of rent be recovered from the petitioner alongwith interest are erroneous and beyond the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The last contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Bhagwan Singh has moved an application for getting impleaded as party and that he also candidly admitted in a separate application that the rent had been paid to Bhagwan Singh. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier rent was CR No. 8233 of 2010 (O&M) 3 being paid by the petitioner to Gurcharan Singh and Tarlochan Kaur and that in view of the categoric admission by Bhagwan Singh that the rent has been paid, the ground of non-payment of rent was clearly not available to the respondent-landlord. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Bhagwan Singh as a co-owner has objected to the proceedings and therefore this renders the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent into nullity cannot be accepted. There is no material shown to this Court from where it can be inferred that Bhagwan Singh has objected to the eviction of the petitioner. Merely because he filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC does not lead to an inference of the kind which the learned counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to arrive at. The only benefit that the petitioner can derive from the conduct of Bhagwan Singh is that he has admitted that the rent has been paid to him, and in such an eventuality the ground of non payment of rent was clearly not available to the respondent. In so far as ground of personal necessity is concerned there is sufficient evidence to show that the respondent required the premises to set up a business for his son. The petitioner has not been able to offset such evidence. Even the witnesses produced by the petitioner have admitted that the son of the respondent Raj Pal Singh is doing business of manufacturing knitting needles and therefore he is connected with business activity. The Courts were thus right in appreciating that the premises are required for personal use and occupation of the respondent who required the same for setting up business for his son. The plea of the petitioner that in the absence CR No. 8233 of 2010 (O&M) 4 of the partition, bona fide need did not stand established is also erroneous. The partition suit is concededly pending wherein the Civil Court has granted a preliminary decree which has been appealed against by the aggrieved party. In any eventuality, the portion of the shop which is to be shared is not the question to be seen by the Rent Controller. For the present the premises which are required by the respondent-landlord can be utilized by him only if the petitioner is evicted from the same. It is obvious that whatever share comes to the respondent shall be utilized for the purpose for which he has expressed his need. It is also settled proposition of law that the landlord has certain grounds which have been set up in Section 13 of the Act which can be availed of by him either singularly or collectively to seek the eviction of a tenant and in the eventuality of even one of them being answered in favour of the landlord, the eviction can be ordered by the learned Rent Controller and it is not necessary that the landlord has to succeed on all the counts for seeking eviction of the tenant. Hence, the petition is held to be without merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the observations of the learned Rent Controller that the respondent shall be liable to recover the rent in the eventuality of the petitioner failing to pay the same alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per month is held to be beyond the tail of controversy and the effect of the same is hereby deleted. The respondent shall have the recourse to the provisions of law in the eventuality of the petitioner failing to deposit the rent or any amount which may be due to the said respondent. December 17, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge