C.R. No.2877 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2877 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 19.05.2008 Ved Parkash ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.N.C.Kinra, Advocate vs. Hukam Chand ....Respondent(s) through None. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is preferred by the petitioner-tenant against the order dated 10.10.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Ganaur, whereby he has been ordered to be evicted from the premises described by letters ABCD in the site plan consisting of two rooms on the ground floor and one room on the first floor situated in the area of Bhagwan Nagar, Ward No.11, Ganaur Mandi, District Sonepat, as well as against the judgment and order dated 1.3.2008 passed by the learned District Judge- cum-Appellate Authority, Sonepat, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the above-mentioned order of ejectment. The petitioner's ejectment has been ordered on the ground that the subject premises is required by the respondent-landlord for his bona fide personal necessity. C.R. No.2877 of 2008 -2- [2] The premises is admittedly commercial in nature (non- residential) was rented out to the petitioner in two parts in the year 1985 and 1986 at the rate of Rs.300/- per month. [3] In his petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Rent and Control Eviction) Act, 1973 ( in short) filed on 27.3.2003, the respondent landlord sought the petitioner's eviction on two grounds, namely, (i) non-payment of rent with effect from 1.1.2002 and (ii) that the premises is required by him for his own use and occupation. [4] As the petitioner tendered the arrears of rent before the Rent Controller as such the ground seeking his ejectment for non-payment of rent, did not survive. [5] However, regarding the plea of bona fide personal necessity, it would be apposite to reproduce the plea taken by the respondent-landlord in his eviction petition which reads as follows:- “The premises is also required by the petitioner for his own use and occupation. He is not occupying any other shop except a small shop, a part of this building and adjoining the tenanted premises which was converted as such in the year 1999 after the institution of a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondent which is shown by letters 'AXY' in the site plan attached. The tenanted premises is located on the railway road just near the railway station. The petitioner is engaged in the business of milk and milk products supplies and manufacture, For this purpose, he has to store milk collected after purchase from different milk vendors. He has also to prepare milk products. He has to supply milk at different places which include Ganaur itself, Sonepat and Delhi etc. Similarly is the supply of milk products. For the above-discussed type of business of the C.R. No.2877 of 2008 -3- petitioner, he is required the entire tenanted premises now in possession of the respondent to run his own business. He is pursuing his business with a great hardship in the portion of this building marked by letters 'AXY'. He has to keep the most of the particulars and milk and utensils either on the road side or at different places which are not convenient and proper for the proper conduct of the abovesaid business of the petitioner. The petitioner is an old man of about 60. He also requires a sufficient portion of this building for his sitting purpose in order to manage the working of his business by workman and some of the portion is required as a rest room for him at different hours of the day for the proper continuation and handling of his abovesaid business. He is not occupying any other such building in the urban area concerned of Ganaur town and has not vacated such type of building without sufficient cause after the commencement of 1949 Act in the said urban area of Ganaur town.” [6] Accepting the aforestated plea, the Rent Controller ordered the petitioner's eviction which has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority. [7] I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders as well as the other relevant documents including relevant part of the evidence placed on record by the petitioner. Various contentions have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. [8] It is argued that even if the respondent-landlord has succeeded in proving 'personal requirement', yet he has failed to prove that the said requirement is “bona fide”. It is then contended that during the pendency of the eviction petition, the respondent-landlord sought amendment of the C.R. No.2877 of 2008 -4- eviction petition which was allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 3.11.2004 (Annexure P-6). However, going beyond the said order, the landlord filed the amended petition which was based upon totally new set of facts. Learned counsel also contends that even as per the amended petition the 'cause of action' pleaded by the respondent-landlord pertains to 'non-payment of the arrears of rent' only. It is argued that since the 'personal necessity' is not the 'cause of action' pleaded by the respondent- landlord, the petitioner could not be evicted on that ground. Reference is also made to the statement of the respondent-landlord allegedly admitting that a shop has been sold by him after the commencement of the petitioner's tenancy. Lastly, it is argued by the learned counsel that in the previous eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord, the ground of “bona fide personal necessity” was never pleaded by him, therefore, he is estopped by his act and conduct from taking the said plea in the present eviction petition. [9] Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the contentions noticed above. The Courts below have concurrently held that the respondent-landlord who was earlier carrying on the business of collecting and transporting milk has subsequently started taking out cream from the milk and preparing ghee etc. He transports the milk and milk products through Railways from Ganaur to Sonepat and Delhi etc. Admittedly, the subject premises is situated very close to the Railway Station, Ganaur. Due to expansion of the business activities, the Courts below have observed that the landlord requires additional portion of the subject premises, therefore, his 'bona fide' personal necessity of the premises stands proved to the hilt. C.R. No.2877 of 2008 -5- [10] So far as filing of the amended petition beyond what was permitted by the Rent Controller is concerned, I am of the considered view that firstly, no such plea was raised by the petitioner before the Courts below. Secondly, no prejudice on that count appears to have been caused to him. The order dated 3.11.2004 (Annexure P-6) permitted the respondent- landlord to plead that the “petitioner-tenant has allegedly constructed a three story building of his own”, therefore, he does not require the subject premises for running his business activities. Even if the said plea was pleaded or proved, it would not have improved the case of the respondent- landlord who was required to stand on his own legs and prove his 'bona fide personal requirement' for the subject premises. In other words, construction of his own premises by a tenant is not the ground available to a landlord to seek the tenant's eviction. As noticed earlier, the respondent has succeeded in proving that the demised premises is required by him for expansion of his business activities. [11] Similarly, the plea that in the 'cause of action', the respondent- landlord has not included the requirement of the premises for his personal use and occupation, is wholly misconceived. In legal parlance, the expression “cause of action” amounts to composition of all those relevant facts which lay the foundation of a legal claim. If one reads the eviction petition in toto, it is crystalized that the respondent-landlord sought the petitioner's eviction expressly and specifically on both the grounds, namely, non-payment of rent as well as his personal necessity. The averments made in the eviction petition regarding 'bona fide' personal necessity, a part of which has already been reproduced above, are certainly an integral part of the 'cause of action' pleaded in the eviction petition. C.R. No.2877 of 2008 -6- [12] Likewise, the contention that in the previous rounds of litigation, the respondent-landlord did not plead requirement of the premises for his personal necessity and, thus, he is estopped from taking up such plea at this belated stage, has no legal basis. The Appellate Authority has observed and rightly so, that at the time when the previous petitions were instituted, the ground to seek eviction of a tenant from the 'non-residential building' for personal use and occupation of the landlord was not available. The respondent, therefore, could not have taken a plea contrary to law. [13] The last contention that after commencement of the tenancy, the respondent-landlord has sold a shop which proves that he does not require the premises for 'bona fide personal necessity', would also meet the same fate. Suffice it to say that the said shop was sold by the respondent- landlord 10 years before he entered into the witness box and the same was located near the police station i.e. at a different place. It is obvious that the said shop was not useful for the purpose for which additional space is required by the landlord. [14] For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 19, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE