IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2887 of 2009 Date of decision: 24th September, 2010 Janak Raj and another … Petitioners Versus Partap Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed by the tenant, whose eviction had been ordered by the appellate authority. The appellate authority reversed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller, Amritsar and held that the premises in question were required by the landlord for his own use and occupation, i.e. for settling his son Karampal Singh, who at the time of institution of the eviction petition was aged about 19 years and was unemployed. The appellate authority further held that in the premises let-out to the petitioners, son of the landlord intended to set-up a karyana (grocery) shop. In the eviction petition, it was stated that the demised shop was rented out at the rate of Rs.150/- per month and that the tenants were in arrears of rent since 1st April, 1996. As stated earlier, the ground of personal necessity was also pleaded in the eviction petition. Lastly, it was pleaded that the tenant-petitioners were using the premises for the Civil Revision No.2887 of 2009 purposes of cycle and scooter repair and they had materially impaired the value and utility of the property in question by running a motor which caused vibration and the walls of the shop had blackened. The tenant-petitioners filed written statement to the eviction petition and stated that initially the monthly rent was Rs.27/- per month, which was increased to Rs.50/- and later-on to Rs.75/- per month. The ground of personal necessity of Karampal Singh was denied and it was stated that he was running a business of finance and was also an income-tax assessee. It was further pleaded that the respondent-landlord had sold his property having four shops in Azad Nagar, Amritsar. However, the ground of material impairment of the property was denied. The Rent Controller, after conclusion of the pleadings, had drawn the following issues: “1. Whether the rate of rent of the premises in question is Rs.150/- PM? OPA 2. If Issue No.1 is decided in affirmative, whether the respondent is in arrears of rent? OPA 3. Whether the premises in question are required by the petitioner for his bonafide necessity? OPA 4. Whether the respondents have materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises? OPA 5. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected from the premises in question? OPA 6. Relief.” Later-on, some additional issues were also formulated, which read as under: “1. Whether the excess amount of rent has been paid by the respondent? OPR 2 Civil Revision No.2887 of 2009 2. If issue No.5 is proved whether the counter claimant is entitled to recovery of the amount? OPR 2-A. If the additional issue No.1 framed on 18.9.2006 is proved then whether the counter claimant/respondent is entitled to prosecution the applicant for the recovery of excess amount as rent by applicant? OPR 3. Relief.” The respondent-landlord Partap Singh himself appeared as AW-4. He was thoroughly cross-examined. In his cross-examination, Partap Singh did state that he was having four shops in Azad Nagar, Amritsar. These shops were sold in the year 1998 and they were constructed three years before the sale. He further admitted that on the first floor, there were four rooms, out of which one was let-out to R.S.Bindra, Advocate. The tenants had tendered rent at the rate of Rs.150/- per month. However, the Rent Controller came to a conclusion that the rent was Rs.75/- per month. The Rent Controller further inferred that since the landlord had not come with clean hands and had stated the rent to be Rs.150/- per month, which was not borne-out from the record, therefore, the testimony of Partap Singh-landlord was not creditworthy. It further came out in the cross-examination that during the pendency of the eviction petition, Karampal Singh had started a business of readymade garments and was an income-tax assessee. On the basis of this, the Rent Controller held that the ground of personal necessity of the landlord pleaded in the eviction petition was not made-out and the premises were not required for settling Karampal Singh-son of the landlord, who had already been doing the business of readymade garments. 3 Civil Revision No.2887 of 2009 The appellate authority, as stated earlier, had reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and upheld the contention of the landlord that the property was required for his personal use and occupation. Mr. C.B.Goyal, Advocate appearing for the tenant- petitioners, has assailed the judgment of the appellate authority on three following grounds. Firstly, the landlord had not approached the Court with clean hands and had not stated that he had sold four shops, which were situated in Azad Nagar, Amritsar. This contention, on the face of it, cannot be accepted, as the four shops were sold in the year 1998 and the eviction petition was instituted in the year 2000. Therefore, the landlord was not under any obligation to give particulars of the property, which he had already sold and which was not in his possession. Secondly, it is submitted that the landlord had admitted that he had rented out one shop to R.S.Bindra, Advocate. A perusal of the cross-examination of the landlord reveals that the alleged shop, which was rented out to R.S. Bindra, Advocate, was on the first floor. The landlord did admit in his cross-examination that earlier the shops on the first floor were let-out but the business of the tenants had not flourished there and they had vacated the same. Thus, it is apparent that in a city like Amritsar, running a shop on the first floor was not successful. Therefore, it does make a better sense for the landlord to get a shop vacated on the ground floor for running grocery business by his son Karampal Singh. Lastly, it has been stated that the landlord had admitted in his cross-examination that his son Karampal Singh was running the business of readymade garments. It is now well settled that the need of the landlord is to be seen from the date, the eviction petition was instituted. At that time, Karampal Singh-son of the landlord was aged 4 Civil Revision No.2887 of 2009 about 19 years and was unemployed. The eviction petition, which was instituted in the year 2000 was decided in the year 2008. For eight long years, son of the landlord was not expected to remain idle. Thus, taking totality of circumstances into consideration, no fault can be found with the findings returned by the appellate authority below and hence, the present petition stands dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 24, 2010 rps 5