s9 79 4 CR No1567 of 2009 1 INTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA CHANDIGARH CR No567 of2009 Dateof decision Mar 2009 l 11 JaspaiSingh Petitioner Versus Yashpal 1CC CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE K KANNAN 0 Present M SanjeevGupta Advocate 0 for the petitioner 3 C5 Mr Arun Jindal Advocate for the caveator I k Z 1 VVhetherreportersof iocal papers may be allowed to see thejudgment2 Q 2 To be referredto the reporters or not7 3 Whether the judgmentshould be reportedin the I digest2 08 K Kannan m 1 The petitionfor eviction filed by the iandlord under m 5 the provisionsof East PunjabUrban Rent Restriction Act 1949 survived for consideration on the issue of personalnecessityof the Iandlord the other groundshavingbeen rendered Ill favour of the tenant by the Rent Controllerand the AppellateCourt 2 The requirement as adverted to by the Iandlord was for settingup a business for one of his sons the other son having been settled in another premisesallottedto him in a famiiypartition The ordered ejectment Learned counsel for the petitionerimpeachesthe orders passedby the Couns below on the groundthat the petitiondoes not satisfythe requirements of Iaw as to pleadingsviz when the Iandlord Parkash Om 2012.12.20 17: 00 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 80 e CR N1567of2009 2 was bound to disclose the particulars of any other propertywhich he was in possessionof but the details of such particulars were not properlyset fonh ln the petitiot Learned counsei for the petitionerrefers me to the relevant pleadings in the petitionwhich sets out the particulars of the propenyin the followingwords That thepetitioner or his son Manpreetdoes not own or possessor vacated any other shopin the Urban area of 1 Patiala without sufficient cause after the comment of r this Act The petitionerWaS havingonly one another 0 shop which is also a paItof the maln house which was givento Pinku who is elder son of petitionerin family I oral partitionand Pinku is alreadymarried and having C5 his independent business of confectionary I Z 3 am unable to countenance the contention that 0 the pleadingsare not sufficientt is not as if the Iandlordowns any other I propettythan what he has disclosed in the petitionThe ownershipof yet c6 another propenyatthe hands ofanother son had been clearlyset out OO There is no particularform of pleadingswhich the Act itself states and 6 Z these are summary proceedingswhere partieshave joined issues on Ll avaiiabilityof another propertyand it was clearlybroughtoutin evidence that such other propeitywas in the occupationof another son it is futileto contend that the pleadings a portionof which are extracted above are not sufflcient as ifto suggestthatthelaw placesextractingstandards in any particularIanguagewhenever the Iandlordowns another premisesAll that is necessary to be established is that the other propenyof which IandlordIS the owner was not in his own occupationand put to the same purpose for which eviction is sought 4 The other reason attributedby the counsel as not fallingwithin the permissibleIimitsof Iaw is the contention of the Iandlord 1 e Parkash Om 2012.12.20 17: 00 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 81 rl 1 CR No1567 of 2009 3 that the other propertyhad been allottedin familypanitionto his other son was not estabiished by any adequateproof The instance that he owned Ano yetanother propetty was not in his possessionwas all that 1 was If the IandIordhad voiunteered an information that the had been allotted to his son it was merelya matter of evidence and a superOuousone as the exclusive allotment or otherwise of the propertyto his other son is whoilyirrelevant so Iongas it is clearlybrought outthat the property was occupiedfor the purpose of business byhis other son Thisobjectionbythe tenant is therefore untenable 5 Yet another objectionto assail thejudgmentof the Courtsbelow was that the son on whose behalf the propenywas sought had not been examined and the noreexaminationof his son was a factorto be taken to discount the bona Odes of the Iandlord This argumentIS merelystated to be rejectedfor the reason even if he had been examined he could not have stated anythingmorethan the fact of what the father personally knew Indeed there are aplentythat the person on 2 whose behalf the propertyIS been examined to prove the bonafides W A 6 The Iast clutch at the straw was the contention that the propertywas a portionof Iargerbuildingwhich was a residential house and the tenant had been runninga business and the Iandlords could have been only for a residential purpose since the buildingwas a residential one it is the purpose of Iettingthat will govern the issue If the propertyhad been iet for a noneresidentialpurpose the Iandlordwas entitled to secure possessionsimilarlyof a nonvresidential purposeThe requirement of the son was to establish his business and thereforethere is no merit in the contention that the Iandlord could not haveasked the vacation of the premisesfor establishingthe business of his son Indeed it is doubtfulwhether the Iandlordcould have requiredthe Parkash Om 2012.12.20 17: 00 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 82 CR No567 of2009 4 1 for a residential purpose when the propertyhad been Iet for noneresidential purpose and held as such bythe tenant The argumentby the Iearned counsel betraysa totallyuntenabledefence that could not be acceptedunder the circumstances 7 The orders of eviction passedbythe Couits below arepeifectlyjustifiedand theyare sustained in the revision as well 8 The revisionpetitionis accordinglydismissed 1 1r 1K KANNANI JUDGE 0 Ib Marc6 2009 archana C5 9 C I Z I c6 m Vl b 0 1 S 1 1 Parkash Om 2012.12.20 17: 00 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document