Civil Revision No. 6675 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6675 of 2011 Date of Decision: 02.11.2011 *** Raj Kumar .. Petitioner VS. Kartar Chand .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner-tenant is aggrieved with the judgment dated 13.10.2011 by virtue of which the judgment dated 9.4.2011 rendered by the learned Rent Controller, dismissing the eviction petition, has been set aside and his eviction has been ordered from the suit premises with a direction to hand over the vacant possession thereof within two months. Heard. It is apparent from the records that respondent Kartar Chand filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of Raj Kumar, petitioner herein, from the plot in dispute, which was rented out to him for running a coal depot The eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent, material alteration and impairing the value and utility of the premises and also on account of personal necessity viz. for the use of his daughter for carrying on the business of stitching and embroidery institute/ center. The respondent admitted the relationship of landlord-tenant, but denied the averments made in the petition. On analysis of evidence led by both the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the rent petition by observing that the tenant is not in arrears of any rent or house tax and no evidence has been produced by the landlord to show the material impairment of the suit premises. With regard Civil Revision No. 6675 of 2011 2 to the personal necessity of the landlord, it was observed that the ingredients of proving the bonafide necessity are not proved since no evidence was produced by the landlord to show that his daughter is having specialized training to run institute to teach stitching etc. and also to show that other premises available with the landlord, where she can carry on the business, are not useful for the required business. The landlord preferred an appeal before the appellate Court below, which affirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller, so far as arrears of rent etc. and impairing the value and utility of the demised premises, are concerned. However, the findings with regard to bonafide necessity were reversed and it was held that the premises are required by the landlord for the bonafide requirement of his daughter. Consequently, as noticed above, ejectment of the tenant has been ordered. Dis-satisfied with the same, instant revision petition has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the paper book carefully. The premises in question have been ordered to be vacated on the ground of personal necessity of the daughter of the landlord. The case projected in this regard is that the daughter of the landlord wants to establish a center/ institute where training in stitching and embroidery etc. could be imparted. It appears that a hyper-technical approach was adopted by the learned Rent Controller in this context to observe that the specialization in this field has not been proved by the landlord, whereas in the considered opinion of this Court no specialized training is required for the purpose and such a task is usually gained by the ladies. It has come on record that the landlord is having other shops as well, but at the same time it has come out that in those shops the landlord and his sons were already carrying out the business and in this eventuality, requirement of the suit premises for settlement of his daughter by running separate business, is very natural. That apart, it is settled that landlord is the best judge of his requirements and it is not for the tenant to dictate terms and conditions to the landlord. See Sadhu Singh Vs. Jatinder Mohan & Ors. 2007(2) RCR 627 and Ashwani Kumar & Ors. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors., 2005(1) RCR 634. Civil Revision No. 6675 of 2011 3 So far as non-fulfillment of essential ingredients to prove bonafide requirement, is concerned, the perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that no objection with regard to non-mentioning of the facts regarding existence of any other shop and getting any other property vacated till the filing of the petition was taken by the tenant in the written statement, which otherwise, though not specifically pleaded, were mentioned in the petition. Therefore, it was rightly held that the pleadings in the rent petition has to be considered broadly and the ingredients sine qua non for seeking eviction on the ground of personal necessity are satisfactorily been pleaded and proved by the landlord. The findings arrived at by the learned appellate Court below while setting aside those of learned trial Court, are neither illegal nor perverse and it cannot be said that the same are based on no evidence. The instant petition, being without any merit, is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) November 02,2011 JUDGE Jiten