CR No.583 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.583 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:29.04.2011. Avinash Chander ...Petitioner Versus Jaswinder Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S.Bedi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amit Bakshi, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which he has been ordered to vacate the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity. In brief, the landlord filed the eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] in respect of the demised premises (shop) which was originally let out by his father Bachan Singh on 14.03.1972 as per rent note of the same date, but since the demised premises was given by Bachan Singh to the present landlord by way of exchange deed dated 27.02.2001, therefore, he stepped into his shoes. He claimed the demised premises, inter alia, on the grounds of subletting and personal necessity. While pleading personal necessity, it was alleged by the landlord that he is serving in Merchant Navy and as his job is not regular, he is going to quit his job immediately in the near future and wanted to start business of computer institution because he owns another adjoining vacant shop. He alleged that his job is not pensionable and he has no other shop to start his CR No.583 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ***** business, whereas the tenant has three shops in the same market where he could do his business without any loss. He also alleged that the tenant has sublet the demised premises to respondent No.2 without his written consent as the tenant is running a Kariyana shop in Mandi Gurdaspur and has ceased to occupy the demised premises for the last more than 4 months prior to the filing of the eviction petition without reasonable cause. After notice, only Avinash Chander (respondent No.2 in the eviction petition) had appeared, whereas respondent No.1 did not appear and he was proceeded against ex-parte. In his reply, Avinash Chander had alleged that the landlord Jaswinder Singh is not the owner of the property in dispute and document of exchange dated 27.02.2001 is a forged document. It was further alleged that both the respondents are real brothers and respondent No.1, by mutual family settlement, started his business separately and had given the business of the shop in dispute to respondent No.2, therefore, there is no question of any subletting. It was further alleged that earlier father of the landlord had filed an application for eviction on 07.06.1997 which was dismissed on 30.09.1997. After the rejoinder was filed, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues: - “1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the suit premises as he has sublet the suit premises without the permission of the landlord?OPA. 2. Whether the petitioner requires the suit premises for his personal bona fide use and necessity?OPA. 3. Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the suit premises for the period of four months without reasonable cause?OPA. 4. Whether petition is not maintainable as petitioner is not the owner of the suit premises?OPR. 5. Relief.” Both the parties led their respective evidence. The landlord did not CR No.583 of 2011 (O&M) -3- ***** press issue Nos.1 and 3 which were decided as not pressed, but the eviction of the tenant was ordered by the learned Rent Controller on issue Nos.2 and 4. The learned Appellate Authority decided the question with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant by recording that exchange deed dated 27.02.2001 has been duly proved by the landlord while appearing as AW1 and the other son of Bachan Singh, namely, Narinder Singh while appearing as AW3. In respect of earlier eviction petition filed by Bachan Singh, it was observed that now the property has fallen to the share of the present landlord, therefore, he cannot be estopped from filing the eviction petition for his own personal requirement. It was also observed that the tenant owns three vacant shops in the same market where they can shift without suffering any loss or injury as it is admitted by Avinash Chander RW3 in his cross-examination that they owned three shops in the same locality. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant has again questioned the exchange deed dated 27.02.2001 (Ex.P2) alleging that there was no reason for Bachan Singh to give the demised premises to his son except for using the same in the present case because as per assessment register of the year 1994-95 (Ex.R1) his name is still continuing as the owner. He has also argued that only a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant and not the owner and by virtue of exchange deed, the present landlord has become the owner at the most but had not become the landlord. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has submitted that after the execution of exchange deed dated 27.02.2001, which has been duly proved on record, the landlord had become the owner and stepped into the shoes of his father who ceased to have any relationship with the tenant. Consequently, the present landlord had acquired the status of both owner as well as the landlord. He has also submitted that even if the name of his father is being reflected in the assessment register, it was only for the fiscal purposes and that too in the year 1994-95, whereas the exchange deed is of the year 2001. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. CR No.583 of 2011 (O&M) -4- ***** Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding in respect of the validity of the exchange deed dated 27.02.2001, therefore, the tenant cannot dispute the status of the present landlord who had become the owner and also his landlord by virtue of being owner as the relationship with the earlier owner had come to an end because of the transfer of title. Moreover, the tenant himself had admitted that he has got three vacant shops in the same market, in that circumstance, it would be a travesty of justice if the landlord, who requires the demised premises for his own personal use, has to look for a rented accommodation and his own shop remains under occupation of the present tenant. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. April 29, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge