CR No.3344 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3344 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:19.05.2011. Chiman Lal ...Petitioner Versus Varun Mittal ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenant is in revision against orders of the Courts below by which he has been asked to vacate the demised premises on the ground of bona fide necessity of the landlord. The brief background of the case is that Smt. Sita Devi (grandmother of the landlord) was the owner of the demised premises. She filed a petition against the tenant for his eviction which was allowed up to the High Court. The tenant filed appeal before the Supreme Court where vide order dated 17.02.1994, the rent of the shop was fixed @ `500/- per month with the consent of the counsel for the parties which was made payable w.e.f. 01.04.1994. The tenant, however, did not comply with the order of the Supreme Court dated 17.02.1994 as he did not make payment of the rent every month. After a lapse of about 3 years, a mediator settled their dispute and the tenant paid the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.04.1994 to 31.03.2004 for a period of 10 years in lump sum, but it is evident that the tenant remained reluctant to follow the order of the Supreme Court dated 17.02.1994 without any reason. Smt. Sita CR No.3344 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ****** Devi executed a Will No.279 dated 13.08.1999 bequeathing the demised premises in favour of the landlord who became its owner after her death in the year 2001. He filed the eviction petition in the year 2007, inter alia, on the grounds of bona fide necessity, arrears of rent and material alterations. In reply, the tenant denied the need of the landlord. It was alleged that he is the only son of his parents and is living with them and is carrying on business in a shop which is situated in the main bazar. On the pleadings of the parties, as many as 3 issues were framed on 28.11.2007. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. Insofar as the non-payment of rent is concerned, that became redundant as the rent was paid by the tenant before the Rent Controller, but his eviction was ordered on the ground of bona fide necessity of the landlord. The tenant being aggrieved against the order of his eviction, filed statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority in which it was argued that the grandmother of the landlord had purposefully given the demised premises to him as she had earlier remained unsuccessful in evicting the tenant and the landlord is doing business along with his father and has been wrongly shown as an employee in order to create a ground for his bona fide necessity. The learned Appellate Authority, after taking into account the entire evidence, confirmed the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller on the issue of bona fide necessity. Consequently, the present revision petition has been preferred by the tenant before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the employment of the son on the shop of his father in only a ploy to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord to run his independent business in the demised premises. It was argued that he is the only son of his parents and as per Ration Card he is residing in the same house with them. It was also argued that Rokar Khata of payment of salary maintained by his father cannot be believed in the absence of Income Tax return of the landlord in this regard. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in detail and have perused the available record from which I have found that there is no scope for interference in the orders of the Courts below because the landlord had CR No.3344 of 2011 (O&M) -3- ****** examined his father who had produced Rokar Khata to show that he has been paying salary to his son who is working on his shop. Moreover, if the son is otherwise assisting his father in his business, then he cannot be precluded from starting his own independent business in the shop which he owns. The business activities are never static and they tend to expand depending upon its nature and the efforts put in by the entrepreneur. There is no dispute that the landlord does not possess any other shop nor has vacated any such shop in the same urban area and it is now well established that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and desire of starting a new business in his own shop by the landlord cannot be held to be not bona fide. In view of the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to take a view different from the views taken by the Courts below in order to disturb the impugned orders. Hence, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. May 19, 2011. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE