Civil Revision No.2454 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: April 29, 2008 Punjab National Bank, Zonal Stationary Centre, SCO No.25, Sector 26, Chandigarh ...Petitioner VERSUS Vinod Kapoor & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. It is not very pleasing to notice that an Institution, like Bank is contesting like a normal litigant to retain possession of a property, which concededly was taken on rent as a tenant. The Bank appears to have felt encourage in making the present approach as it had succeeded in saving the tenancy before the Rent Controller. It was not, however, fortunate enough to succeed in appeal and hence the present revision. The respondent-landlords filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner-Bank from the basement, first floor and second floor of Civil Revision No.2454 of 2008 : 2 : SCO No.25, Sector 26, Chandigarh. The ground pleaded was the personal necessity of the respondents. It is pleaded that the respondents are in the business in the name and style of M/s Kapoor Brothers Agency in the basement and ground floor of SCO No.194-195, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. They are running a showroom of Titan Industries Limited. They are also having a franchise of Arrow Shirts, besides dealing with paper and stationery items. Arvind Mills, manufacture of Arrow Shirts are running prestigious showrooms in India and abroad and as such require a good decorated showroom and a space for selling their products from the respondents. The ground floor of the showroom at Sector 17, as such, is found to be sufficient only for the sale of watches, jewellery and arrow shirts. Plea of the respondents is that paper and stationery items would require enough space for storage. The sale of such stationery items otherwise also does not go with the business of sale of watches, jewellery and shirts. It is then pointed out that respondents Vinod, Manish and Ankur are partners of M/s Kapoor Brothers Agency and also co-owner of SCO No.25, Sector 26, Chandigarh. They, as such, have decided to shift the business of paper and stationery from SCO at Sector 17 to the ground floor premises of SCO in Sector 26. It is further averred that Vinod, Manish and Aruna are partners with Anil and Rajiv in the firm M/s Kapoor Brothers Roller Flour Mills, Panchkula. This firm is having no space for administrative office at Chandigarh. Having an administrative office at Panchkula is found to be inconvenient and impossible for conducting sale Civil Revision No.2454 of 2008 : 3 : transactions, which are mainly to be done at Chandigarh. Accordingly, there is a requirement of a space for M/s Kapoor Brothers Rolling Flour Mills. Hence, there is a need of vacation of the demised premises at Sector 26. Once the Zonal Manager did not take into consideration the request made for vacating the premises, present eviction petition is filed. It is also disclosed that the respondents have filed petition against other occupants of front portion on the ground floor, which is on rent with M/s Bajaj Associates and back portion on the ground floor, which is under the tenancy of M/s Faquir Chand Karva and sons. All the co-owners are closely related and have no objection to the occupation of tenanted premises by the respondents. The Bank contested the petition. The ownership of the respondents is conceded. It is, however, pleaded that the accommodation in possession of the landlords is sufficient for running their business. Plea is that the present petition has been filed only as a tool to extract money. The averment that space is needed for running administrative office due to inconvenience etc. is denied terming the need to be imaginary and without any substance. The parties accordingly went to trial on the following solitary issue:- “ Whether the demised premises requires for personal use and occupation by petitioners.?OPP”. Trial court decided this issue against the respondents. They filed appeal before the Appellate Authority which has reversed the findings of the Rent Controller. Mr.Jagdish Marwaha, counsel for the petitioner has made Civil Revision No.2454 of 2008 : 4 : manifold submissions to impugn the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The counsel first pleads that the eviction had been sought by opening a partnership. The counsel submits that the rights of some of the partners to seek eviction cannot be maintained and has also raised a grouse that the respondents had not approached the court with clean hands inasmuch as they had not disclosed that they are owning another SCO No.201-202 in Sector 17, Chandigarh It is noticed that relationship of landlords and tenant is not disputed. Thus, the only issue which arose for determination was the justification of the personal need as projected. The basic fact pleaded in regard to the business being run at Sector 17, Chandigarh is also not in serious dispute. It has been noticed by the Appellate Court that various pleas raised by the respondents were not subject matter of serious dispute. The simple plea raised by the tenant ofcourse was that accommodation in possession of the landlord- respondents was sufficient for running their business. The Appellate Court rightly observed that the plea raised by the respondents is not that they do not have sufficient space to run the business in Sector 17. Their plea, however, is that the papers and stationery business has nothing common with the other business being run there and is not befitting to have these different businesses from the same premises. The respondents had been successful in getting the SCO vacated from M/s Bajaj Associates and the case filed by them against M/s Faquir Chand Karva and sons was also pending decision. Appreciating these facts as brought on record, the Appellate Court found that the respondents had the intention to shift Civil Revision No.2454 of 2008 : 5 : their paper and stationery business from their showroom at Sector 17 to start the same in the ground floor of SCO at Sector 26, Chandigarh. Similarly, the need to have administrative office at Chandigarh has also been considered and found viable. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any evidence or material on record which would have gone to cast a doubt on the requirement as projected by the respondents. It has rightly been observed that the judicial precedents are in plenty to the effect that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and in this regard the tenant has no role to make a choice for him to say if the premises with him is sufficient or that his need is not bonafide. During the course of arguments, it was also revealed that the Bank is also using the premises at Sector 26, Chandigarh for storing its stationery etc. The plea raised by the petitioner that the present petition has only been filed to extract more money by way of rent is a mere assertion so made and there is nothing to substantiate the same. It is also worth a notice that the need to have a business would always change and can never remain static. The plea of the petitioner that there is another showroom available would also be not of much avail as it is for the landlord to decide which premises are suitable for his requirement and this choice also cannot be made by a tenant. The reference is made by the petitioner to a letter dated 1.2.1995 seeking enhancement of a rent . The writing of the letters is conceded, but it is pointed out that after 1995, the respondents felt the need to have the premises for their own use. It is to be noticed Civil Revision No.2454 of 2008 : 6 : that the business of Arvind Clothing was started by the respondents in the year 1994. There may not have been need of more space in the year 1995 and it came to be realised subsequent in the year 1997-98. The Arrow Shirt business is also started in the year 1994. As has been observed on the basis of judgments of this court that mere writing of letters by landlord to tenant to enhance rent on an earlier occasion is no ground to doubt the bonafide need of the landlord. Reference in this regard can be made to Usha Mukerjee Vs. Mohan Lal, 1980(2) RCR 686 and Chander Mohan Mittal Vs. Behari Lal Gupta, 1991(2) RCR 163. In my view, the Appellate Authority has rightly differed with the view taken by the Rent Controller. I am, thus, inclined to up-hold the findings returned by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has not been able to substantiate any of the pleas and thus this revision deserves to be dismissed. It is so ordered. At this stage, Mr.Marwaha appearing for the respondents prays for grant of some time to the petitioner to make some alternative arrangements to look for some suitable accommodation so as to vacate the demised premises. The petitioner would hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises within the statutory period of three months from today. This shall, however, be subject to the condition that the petitioner would appear before the Court of Rent Controller and file an undertaking within a period of one month from today to hand over the vacant possession on the expiry of three months. The petitioner shall also deposit the arrears Civil Revision No.2454 of 2008 : 7 : of rent due in advance upto the date of vacation. April 29, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE