CR No.3348 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3348 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:20.05.2011. Pardeep Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Sandeep Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate, for the caveator/respondent. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short “the Act”] in order to seek possession of shop No.75, situated in Ganesh Market, Hisar which was purchased by him from Krishna Kumari wife of Shri K.C.Bhatia in the year 1983 and was let out to the petitioner/tenant w.e.f. 01.06.2002 in which he was doing the business of sale, purchase and repair of telephone apparatus. He prayed for his eviction, inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.08.2002 till the date of filing the eviction petition and for his personal requirement of the demised premises in order to run the business of general store and gift items. The tenant, in reply, disputed the rate of rent and had alleged that he had taken the shop from Radhey Shyam Bhatia on 01.01.2004 and had to file a civil suit for injunction against him when he had tried to dispossess him forcibly. On 15.06.2006, issues were framed. Both the parties led their respective evidence. The learned Rent Controller decided the issue of arrears of rent against the landlord and the issue of personal necessity in his favour which led to filing of the statutory appeal by the tenant against his eviction and cross-objections by the landlord on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. Before the learned Appellate Authority, the landlord gave up issue of non-payment of arrears of rent and hence, cross-objections were CR No.3348 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ***** dismissed as not pressed but the appeal filed by the tenant against order of eviction on the ground of bona fide necessity was pressed by him which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority on 19.04.2011 with the following observations: - “17. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention raised by learned counsel for the tenant but I do not find any merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the tenant. PW2 Amar Lal, proprietor of M/s. Amar Lal Harish Kumar, a Kiryana and General Store deposed that Sandeep Kumar took training of sale and purchase of items of Kiryana and general Store for about one year. Petitioner appeared as PW3 and supported the version of the petition and PW4 Madan Lal corroborated his version. However, respondent/tenant himself appeared in the witness box as RW1 and by means of his affidavit Ex.RW1/A, reiterated the stand taken by him in the written statement. No other witness had been examined by the respondent to corroborate his testimony and to prove that the petitioner had some more properties in Hisar except one the shop in dispute. No doubt it has come on record that petitioner did not take any training for running the business of General Store and gift items but the fact remains that training or experience of the petitioner was not pre-requisite condition to get the ejectment order of the respondent from the shop in dispute. In this regard reliance can be placed upon Sinder Pal Singh vs. Nirmal Singh 2005(1) RCR 458, Ashwani Kumar and another Vs. Sashi Bala and others 2005 (1) RCR 369. It has come on record that the landlord/petitioner had no business. He had three children and wife and therefore, he had a right to CR No.3348 of 2011 (O&M) -3- ***** start his business. I have also gone through the judgment of the learned Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller has discussed the evidence in detail and law on the point in correct perspective. The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the parties have already been discussed in detail and correctly appreciated in right perspective. I find no infirmity or illegality in the findings of the learned Rent Controller, therefore, the findings of the learned Rent Controller on all the issues are affirmed.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the landlord is residing in village, his children are studying in village and he is ready to enhance the rent as the landlord does not require the shop for his personal need as he has no experience to run the business of general store and gift items. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/caveator has submitted that there is hardly any scope to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below especially when it has not been shown that the findings recorded are perverse. Moreover, he did not accept the offer of enhancement of rent. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record from which I have found that even if the landlord is residing in the village along with his family, he has all the rights to seek vacation of his shop in the city for the purpose of running his own business for which he cannot be condemned for not knowing the intricacies of the business which he wanted to start. Insofar as the enhancement of rent is concerned, this Court had put it to the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord who flatly refused to enhance the rent, rather pleaded his requirement of the demised shop where he wants to start his own business to earn his livelihood. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. May 20, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge