CR No.168 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.168 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : 07-09-2010 Bhushan Lal ....Petitioner VERSUS Ravinder Kumar and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner None for the respondents MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition by the tenant is directed against the orders of the learned Rent Controller dated 27.3.2009 and that of the learned Appellate Authority dated 9.11.2009. Petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the premises in question which is a shop situated in the township of Ludhiana on a petition having been preferred by the respondent-landlord under the provisions of Section 13 of the East Urban Punjab Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Rent Controller framed the following issues:- i) whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the suit property for non payment of rent?OPP. ii)Whether the property in dispute is bona fidely requried by the petitioner no.2 for his personal use and occupation?OPP. iii)Whether the present petition is not maintainable?OPR CR No.168 of 2010(O&M) 2 iv)whether the present petition is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC? OPC/OPR. v) Relief. Respondent had sought the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal use and occupation for the purposes of running hoisery business. Ground of non payment of rent was also incorporated in the petition. The rent having been paid, this ground did not survive but in so far as the ground of personal necessity was concerned the same was accepted by both the Courts below and the petitioner was ordered to be evicted as a consequence thereof. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner is in the instant revision petition and has contended that on a prior occasion in the year 1991, the respondent had filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the same was required for his residential purposes. This petition was withdrawn in the year 1997 and in 1998 the instant petition was filed. During the pendency thereof, another petition for eviction was filed on the ground of sub-letting which petition was not taken to its logical end and it was eventually dismissed for want of prosecution. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that successive and repetitive petitions preferred by the respondent- landlord indicates that the need of the respondent is not bona fide and it is only with the motive to secure his eviction that such petitions have been filed. It was next contended before this Court that there is no averment in the petition that the entire premises were required by the respondent and thus this fact should be construed to be fatal to the case of CR No.168 of 2010(O&M) 3 the respondent. Thirdly, it was contended that respondent had alternative accommodation with him which is a shop adjoining the demised premises and which premises he let out to some one else during the pendency of this petition indicating that the need of the respondent was not bona fide. He further contended that this plea was specifically raised and proved by him but was not answered by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. Reliance has been placed on cases titled as Kolla Ravindra (alias) K Ravi vs. Susheela Bai 2008(1) RCR 125, K.Appanna vs. S.Rajasekha 1998(2)RCR (Rent) 97 and Shankarlal vs. Smt. Kamla Devi Nayak 2001(2) RCR (Rent) 542 No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned judgments and have gone through the record of the case. In so far as the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned regarding filing of the successive petitions to infer that the need is not bona fide, I am afraid that such a contention cannot be accepted as a general principle. Section 13 of the Act contemplates various grounds on which a landlord can seek eviction of the tenant. The provision is thus restrictive in nature and confines the option of a landlord to the grounds stipulated therein, with each ground more or less independent of each other. The landlord can thus seek eviction of the tenant on the grounds contemplated in the statute and merely because one of the grounds is invoked at a prior point of time does not by any stretch of imagination mean that a petition on a different ground which may construe an independent cause of action to the landlord cannot be invoked CR No.168 of 2010(O&M) 4 by way of petition under Section 13. In the instant case, the respondent- landlord had filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner initially in the year 1991 which need was expressed to be the use and occupation of the premises for residential purposes but the petition was withdrawn in 1997 and filed in 1998 once again ostensibly for the reason that the ground for eviction on the ground of personal necessity qua commercial premises became available in view of the judgment titled as Harbilas Rai Bansali vs. State of Punjab 1996(1) PLR 227. In any eventuality as observed earlier the landlord has every right to invoke any of the grounds which may be available to him under Section 13 and merely because petitions on different grounds had been filed cannot be termed to be a negation of the fact that the premises are not required by such a landlord rather it is a strong assertion of his need for the purpose. Next contention that has been raised is that there is no averment in the rent petition that the entire premises are required for the personal use and occupation which contention also necessarily has to be rejected. It is not the case of the petitioner that the demised premises exists in portions which are independent of each other or which are subjected to different tenancies. The respondent-landlord who averred that he required the demised premises obviously is referring to the premises as a whole and nothing else can be read into such an assertion. This contention is also rejected. Last contention that has been raised is that the respondent had an alternative accommodation in the shape of a shop which was adjoining the demised premises which are let out to someone else during the pendency of the petition and which fact was also proved by him and CR No.168 of 2010(O&M) 5 which was not adequately answered by the learned Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority. If the evidence on record is to be seen then the petitioner had merely produced one witness RW 1 Sanjay Sharma to substantiate his plea which has further been fortified by Ex.RW3/2, the photographs pertaining to the adjoining premises. This evidence however is not adequate and in the opinion of this Court the petitioner has failed to dislodge the onus upon him to prove such a fact he has averred. There was neither any rent note nor was the tenant of the adjoining premises examined nor there was any material from where it could be inferred that such a tenancy had been created. The Supreme Court in numerous judgments has reiterated the view that the landlord is the best judge of his need and if he expresses his need to occupy the premises and utilise the same for his own ends, the same has necessarily to be accepted unless there is overwhelming evidence on record to show that such a need is not bona fide. Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 1998(2) RCR 533, observed as follows: “14. The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is CR No.168 of 2010(O&M) 6 not for the tenant to dictate terms of the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.” In Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary and Co. AIR 2000 Supreme Court 534 the following observation has been made :- “...It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter...” Similarly, in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co.Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal and others (2005) 8 SCC 252 it has been observed as under :- “.......It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad therefore, it is not genuine need. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business......” In any eventuality, if the respondent-landlord after getting the premises vacated on the ground of personal need does not put it to the use which is expressed in the petition, the statute contemplates a remedy to CR No.168 of 2010(O&M) 7 the tenant to re-possess the premises. The interest of the tenant is therefore secured by the statute itself. Looking at it from any angle, no infirmity in the findings of the Rent Controller and that of the learned Appellate Court has been found and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are held to be without merit and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed. September 07, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge