CR No.5081 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5081 of 2003 Date of Decision: 8.7.2010 Mrs.RanbirTalib @ Mrs.Ranbir Satwant Singh ..Petitioner Vs. M/s Bhatia Gas ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Sr.Advocate, with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.M.S.Kohli, Advocate, for the respondent. --- 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This revision petition by the landlord is directed against the judgment dated 3.06.2003 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, CR No.5081 of 2003 2 Chandigarh vide which the petition filed by the petitioner/landlord, under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to Chandigarh (for short the Act), has been ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner/landlord filed ejectment petition for eviction of the respondent/tenant from 229, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh by pleading therein that the petitioner is owner and landlord of the demised premises which was taken on rent by the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs.3600/- (Rupees three thousand and six hundred only), in addition to water and electricity charges. The tenancy was monthly, commencing with the first day of British Calender month. The respondent tenant was requested several times to vacate the premises as it was needed for personal use of the petitioner and her family members, but the respondent failed to vacate, hence this petition. Ground of personal necessity pleaded was that the petitioner along with her husband and son wanted to start an industrial unit of manufacturing various items in the demised premises. She also showed her intention to open a Show Room in SCO Nos.53-54 Sector 17-D, Chandigarh and to use second floor of said building for office purposes, for which separate ejectment petitions were said to be pending. It was also pleaded, that she was not in occupation of any other commercial building within the urban area of Chandigarh, nor she had vacated any such premises after the commencement of the Act. The petition was contested by the respondent/tenant by raising CR No.5081 of 2003 3 preliminary objection that the premises being commercial could not be got vacated on the ground of personal necessity. The petition was said to be filed by the petitioner, with ulterior motive of enhancing the rent. It was also pleaded by the tenant, that necessary ingredients as stipulated in the Rent Act were not pleaded. On merit, the case of the respondent/tenant was, that the demised premises were given on rent in October, 1971 initially at the rate of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) per month, later on rent was increased from time to time as per mutual agreement. The respondent/tenant was paying rent at the rate of Rs.4320/- (Rupees four thousand three hundred and twenty only), on the date of filing of the written statement in addition to water and electricity charges. The respondent denied, that he was asked to vacate the premises on the ground of personal necessity, as pleaded. The case of the tenant/respondent was that the petitioner wanted to enhance the rent to Rs.7000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) by ignoring the earlier terms and conditions of tenancy between the parties. The respondent/tenant had refused to accept the demand of enhancement of rent, hence the petition, even though, the petitioner did not require premises for her own use and the use of her husband and son. It was also the case of the tenant/respondent, that the petitioner failed to disclose material particulars in eviction petition regarding other properties mentioned in the petition. The petitioner and her family members are farmers and own immovable property and agricultural land in Punjab and were busy in looking after their land. Therefore, the demised CR No.5081 of 2003 4 premises were not required for their own use and occupation. In the replication, the averments made in the written statement were denied and that of the petition were reiterated. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Controller, framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the requirement of the petitioner for the demised premises is bona fide? OPP 2. Whether the petition is not legally maintainable? OPR 3. Whether the petitioner has concealed true and material facts from the Court? OPR 4. Relief. The petitioner in support of her case appeared in the witness box as PW 1 and closed her evidence, whereas the respondent appeared as RW 1 and closed his evidence. Learned Rent Controller accepted the statement made by the petitioner, while appearing in the witness box and held that the premises were required by the petitioner for personal use and occupation. Issue No1 was decided in favour of the petitioner. Finding was recorded by applying the settled law that the landlord was the sole judge of his need and had complete freedom in this matter. In view of the findings recorded, the petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and the respondent/tenant was directed to vacate the premises within three months from the date of the order. CR No.5081 of 2003 5 The respondent/tenant preferred an appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Rent Controller. The learned Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller, on the ground of personal necessity after considering the law cited by the respective parties and thereafter by recording that the crux of the case law was, that the desire and willingness of the landlord should be given due weightage. Intention behind taking the plea of bona fide necessity must not be to seek ejectment of the tenant with a motive or intention to get increased the rent of the building or to change the tenant i.e. to say that need should be bona fide and not a mere desire. The learned Appellate Court after recording this finding held that mere desire of the landlord or landlady was not enough to pass an ejectment order against the tenant. The learned Appellate Authority also held that pleadings and evidence adduced in the case showed that landlady had not disclosed at the time of filing of the ejectment petition as to what type of business she was going to start. While appearing in the witness box, in examination-in-chief, she stated that she wanted to start the food processing unit, whereas in cross-examination she changed her stand and deposed that she had not decided as to which type of business was to be started in the demised premises. She deposed that she was interested in starting the food processing unit, and took a positive stand, that she had decided to form a company for starting a business with her family members, but admitted that CR No.5081 of 2003 6 she had not taken any step to constitute any company nor had applied for any licence till date. She had taken the plea that the ground floor portion and first floor portion of SCO Nos.53-54-55 were to be used as show room and office, but she failed to give the details of the petitions said to have been filed against the other tenants, as stated by her in her examination in chief. On the assessment of the evidence, learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the plea of bona fide requirement was not proved, rather it was mere desire of the petitioner to get the demised premises vacated. In view of the finding, the appeal was accepted and the rent petition was dismissed. Mr. Arun Jain, learned senior counsel for the petitioner challenged the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority, holding that the bona fide requirement was not proved, as the petitioner had failed to disclose what business she was to start in the demised premises, being contrary to the law laid down by this court in the case of Balwant Singh Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. 2004 (1) Rent Control Reporter 487, wherein this court held that it was not necessary for the landlord to plead and prove the specific business which he wanted to set up. This court in the judgment had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Khaitan and others Vs. Bibi Zubaida Khatunand Anr.1995 (1) RCR (Rent) 495 and Dattatraya Laxman Kamble Vs. Abdul Rasul Maulali Kotune and Anr.1999 (1) RCR (Rent) 508. CR No.5081 of 2003 7 Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Prasad Jain Vs. Manohar Lal Jain 2006 (1) RCR 250 and Shamshad Ahmad & Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (Deceased) through LRs & Ors. 2008 (2) RCR 346, to contend that education and experience was not necessary for landlord to claim premises, on the ground of bona fide requirement to start a particular business. On the contentions raised above, learned senior counsel for the petitioner prayed that the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority deserves to be set aside, and that of the learned Rent Controller restored. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Though the law relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner cannot be disputed, that it is not necessary for the landlord to specify the specific business, which he wanted to set up in the demised premises, nor it is necessary for the landlord to have experience of the business, he intends to start, but at the same time the landlord is required to lead some evidence to prove that need is bona fide and it is not a mere desire. One line from a judgment in absence of similarity in facts, can not be a ground to set aside a well reasoned judgment. The petitioner/landlady had failed to prove that she was interested in starting the food processing unit, in the demised premises along with her husband and son and that the premises were required for the purposes of her own use and occupation. CR No.5081 of 2003 8 As in cross-examination, she denied the case set up in the petition. Except for her bald statement in support of her case, she did not lead any evidence, whatsoever, to prove her need, to seek ejectment on the ground of personal necessity. Rather the stand taken by the landlady in examination-in-chief was, totally shattered in the cross-examination, as she was not able to withstand the test of cross-examination, wherein she admitted that she had no intention now to start the pleaded business. She was also not able to tell, from where she had taken training in food preservation, nor she was able to produce any certificate regarding this. Not only this, it was her own case that she wanted to set up a company along with her husband and son but in cross-examination she admitted that no steps to incorporate a company were taken. She also deposed that she had not made up her mind as to what business was to be carried out. She also admitted that her husband was looking after the agricultural land of the family. She was also unable to disclose if any other rent petition was pending for vacation of building to be used by her for setting up the office. The reading of her own examination, shows that she was unable to prove any assertion made in the petition to seek eviction. There was absolutely no evidence, which could justify even remotely that the premises were required by the petitioner for her bona fide need and occupation. This is a clear-cut case where petition was filed merely on desire to have the premises vacated without the bona fide requirement. The learned appellate authority rightly held that the petitioner had failed to CR No.5081 of 2003 9 prove her bona fide requirement. The judgment of the learned Appellate Authority which is based on appreciation of evidence and pleadings of the parties, does not call for any interference by this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. 8.07.2010 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge