Civil Revision No. 4816 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 4816 of 2008 Date of Decision: 21.10.2008 Anup Kumar …Petitioner Versus Vikas Jain and Another ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Father of petitioner Vikas Jain died in near 1984 when he was a tiny toddler of less than two years age as his date of birth is 5.10.1982. Mother of petitioner Saroj Bala married Jai Bhagwan and the petitioner was residing in the house of his step-father. Petitioner did his B.Com Examination in May 2002 and also done his Software Diploma in Computers. The petitioner intended to star a Computer Training Centre at Safidon in the property owned by him which has been rented out to the tenant-petitioner Anup Kumar, respondent to the eviction petition at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. It was further stated therein that the respondent-tenant was in the arrears of Rs.18,500/- upto Civil Revision No. 4816 of 2008 2 31.7.2003. It was further stated that the petitioner is dependent upon his foster father Jai Bhagwan and, therefore, being unemployed he wanted to start his own business. Written statement was filed by the tenant, wherein it was stated that the petitioner has no cause of action to file the petition and the petition is without any basis. It was further stated that the father of petitioner had not died in the year 1984 but died in 1983. On merits, personal necessity of the petitioner is denied on the ground that at Ambala there are better chances of business than at Safaidon. It was further stated that the rate of rent was not Rs.500/-, but was Rs.300/- per month. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were drawn by learned Rent Controller:- 1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute on the basis of arrears of rent, change of user, personal necessity? OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 3. Whether the petitioner has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present petition? OPR 4. Whether the respondent has already tendered the actual arrears of rent? OPR 5. Whether the petition has been filed within three years after attaining the age of 18 years by petitioner No.1? OPR (There is clerical mistake, 80 years has been written instead of 18 years. Therefore, issue Civil Revision No. 4816 of 2008 3 No.5 is hereby rectified). 6. Relief. Learned Rent Controller after examining the evidence of Saroj Bala who appeared as PW1 and the testimony of petitioner as PW.2 taking into consideration various documents, came to conclusion that the shop in question is required for personal necessity. Petitioner-tenant examined five witnesses. The finding of personal necessity was also affirmed and upheld by learned lower Appellate Court. Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the following portion of the cross-examination, which, on translation, reads as under:- “...I am the owner of the shop in question. My mother has no share in the same. Ambala is 20 times larger than Safaidon. Ambala has advanced and is much ahead in Computer Science. Ambala is called Science City. I was studying in Ambala City since third class and have completed my studies upto B.Com at Ambala. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX ...Real son of Jai Bhagwan is aged about 13-14 years. I reside along with Jai Bhagwan and I share grief and happiness with Jai Bhagwan. I respect him. He looks after me like his own son”. Learned counsel for the petitioner, from this portion of the cross-examination, wanted to urge that since the better chances for growth and prosperity are at Ambala and the petitioner has been Civil Revision No. 4816 of 2008 4 residing at Ambala, therefore, personal necessity is not made out as the respondent-tenant will not be able to adjust at Safaidon. Controverting this, counsel for respondent has submitted that if Ambala has better growth prospects, at the same time value of the real estate will be also 20 times higher than the property at Safaidon. Therefore, equally the respondent-tenant will not be able to afford purchase of any property at Ambala. Learned counsel for the respondent further urged that need of the landlord should not be modulated according to the perception of the tenant. The respondent-landlord is the young boy who has done his B.Com and Diploma in Computer Software, therefore, his plea that he wants to start his business in his shop which has been rented out to the petitioner is well justified. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that learned Rent Controller had no basis to conclude that personal necessity is bonafide. It has only taken into consideration that Vikas Jain has a step brother, therefore, the reasoning of learned Rent Controller cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn my attention to the reasoning given by learned Appellate Court where learned Appellate Court has held as under:- “21. When own son of Jai Bhagwan (step father of petitioner No.1) is nearing, the petitioner does not have any chance to grow with his step father. He has rather come up with a plea that his stepfather has asked him to settle at Safidon and to manage the property of his father. Even this version of RW-1 Satbir, a resident of Safidon and working as Civil Revision No. 4816 of 2008 5 a driver of Ambala, is taken on its face value then the petitioner No.1 was rendering some help to his stepfather Jai Bhagwan. There is nothing bad in it. When imparting studies and being supported by his stepfather, if petitioner no.1 was rendering some assistance to him in his business, it would not imply that petitioner no.1 is settled in business or gainfully employed with Jai Bhagwan, his father. Even mother of petitioner no.1 is not claiming any right or interest in the proper of her earlier husband Naresh Kumar and is taking Vikas Jain to be exclusive owner for the same and Jai Bhagwan has also told petitioner no.1 Vikas Jain to settle in the property of his father, an indication is clear and transparent. Neither his mother Smt. Saroj Bala nor his stepfather Jai Bhagwan is interested to keep petitioner No.1 Vikas Jain with them. Rather in the given set of circumstances, petitioner no.1 has no choice but to settle at Safidon where he owns property. He is a B.Com; he is sustained and supported by academic attainments in the field of computers. As per his version, which is in conformity with the pleadings, he wants to start as computer center by getting the premises in dispute and two other connected premises”. it is submitted that there is misreading on the part of learned Civil Revision No. 4816 of 2008 6 Appellate Court below as in the cross-examination portion, which has been translated and reproduced above, it cannot be said that the relations of Vikas Jain with Jai Bhagwan were not cordial. Be as it may, for upholding the bonafide necessity, Court has narrated fact that Jai Bhagwan has another son and petitioner being a Step son, in times to come, may not have cordial relations with him. Accordingly, I find no merit in the present petition and have no reason to differ with the findings of the two Courts below. Even otherwise, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, I cannot substitute my opinion with well founded opinion formulated by the two Courts below. The finding of the two Courts below are neither perverse nor perfunctory. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. However, on the request made by Mr. Gupta, tenant is granted three months time to vacate the premises subject to deposit of arrears of rent, if any. However, the petitioner shall also deposit rent of every month on or before 7th of each month. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 21, 2008 “DK”