Civil Revision No. 6350 of 2007 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6350 of 2007 Date of decision : 8.3.2010 Gulshan Kumar Petitioner Versus Smt. Rajni Bansal & others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-tenant is in revision against a concurrent finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also learned Appellate Authority upholding the plea of personal necessity raised by the respondent-landlord. In the course of the petition, the following pleas of ejectment were urged : i) The respondents have not paid rent to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.10.1994 and a sum of Rs.4320/- has become due which the respondents are liable to pay to the petitioners alongwith costs and interest; ii) )The petitioners require the shop in question for their bonafides personal use, need and occupation of their family members including that the petitioner no.2 and 3 Civil Revision No. 6350 of 2007 -2- *** required the shop in question for running their business of sale and purchase of Radio, T.V. etc. It is common ground presently that petitioner no.4 died during the pendency of the trial before the learned Rent Controller and the matter has to be adjudicated upon in the context of the averment made in relation of requirement of other members of family including Diomand Bansal, one of the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller.” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues, with a certain amount of vehemence, that the projected need of the respondents-landlord is a farce in view of the fact that Diomand Bansal is already in employment. Reliance, in support of the advocated contention is placed upon the own statement of Diomand Bansal who stepped into witness box, as his own witness, as PW-1. The plea raised is without any force. Though Diomand Bansal did concede that he is presently in employment of JSBL, it cannot be denied that the employment aforementioned is with a private firm. Even otherwise, a landlord who owns tenanted premises and who has applied for an eviction action against the tenant for possession of the tenanted premises owned by the landlord cannot be expected to stay without employment till the final decision of the ejectment action. Every individual has to compulsively earn his bread and butter to make both ends meet for self and other dependent members of the family. Insofar as the Civil Revision No. 6350 of 2007 -3- *** academic qualifications of Diomand Bansal are concerned, there is no controversy about it. He testified on oath that he has obtained indicated Mechanical Engineering diploma from the Govt. Polytechnic, Ambala city and that he had also obtained higher mechanical engineering qualification. He, placed on record Annexure A/5 and Annexure A/6 in the relevant behalf. He in a further categorical deposition, testified that he wants to open Civil Engineering Consultant Office in the tenanted premises. It was, then, argued that the property in suit had been willed by the original owner thereof for utilisation as a Shivala and, that being so, respondents-landlord cannot be get it vacated for their personal use. The plea raised in the context was that the rental income could not be used for the upkeep of the religious place aforementioned. The plea raised is not borne out by the material obtaining on the file. It would require pertinent notice that petitioner-tenant conceded in the opening sentence of the affidavit Ex. PW4/A (which was tendered in view of the examination-in-chief) that Shri Jado Rai Bansal, Advocate, father-in-law of Mst. Kailash Rani, was landlord of the tenanted premises. He conceded, in the course of the cross- examination, that Diomand Bansal (and the deceased petitioner) were minors at the time that tenancy came about and that they attained majority on 23.2.1995 and October,1997 respectively. He conceded, as correct, a suggestion that the tenanted was the only shop available with them at the time they filed a plea for ejectment of Civil Revision No. 6350 of 2007 -4- *** the petitioner from the tenanted premises on attaining majority. It may further be noticed that he conceded the factum of predecessor- in-interest of the petitioner-tenant having obtained the tenanted premises from the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents- landlord on rent, vide rent note Ex. A/1. In view, thus, of the fact that the relationship of the landlord-tenant between the parties is conceded and there is no material on the file to indicate that the tenanted premises had been willed away by the original landlord for use as as a religious place, there is no warrant for the proposition that the respondent-landlords cannot get it vacated for their personal bonafide necessity. Infact, the cue to the controversy is to be found in the testimony of PW-1 himself. In the course of the cross- examination, he made a categorical averment that the premises where Murti Shivaji Maharaj Mandir is located consists of two shops which have already given on rent and further that there is a 3rd ship which was earlier in occupation of a tenant but has since been vacated. Prior thereto, he had denied, as incorrect, a suggestion that tenanted premises had been willed in favour of the Shivala Mandir. A conjunctive perusal of his above quoted statement would indicate that premises for utilisation as Shivala Mandi are different from the tenanted premises. There is, thus, no warrant for the proposition that the respondent-landlords cannot get vacate the tenanted premises for their personal bonafide necessity. It would, thus, be apparent from the above discussion that the respondent-landlords have been able to prove that the Civil Revision No. 6350 of 2007 -5- *** tenanted premises are required for personal bonafide necessity for use by Dimand Bansal for business purpose. In the light of the reasoning adopted by the learned Rent Controller and also by the learned Appellate Authority, which (reasoning) is competent and factually correct in its relate-ability to the material obtaining on the file, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. March 08, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE