Civil Revision No. 3407 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3407 of 2007 Date of decision: 21.07.2010 Ram Rattan ....Petitioner Versus Darshan Lal Walia and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. J.S. Chandail, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Kang, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition by the tenant is directed against the order dated 5.3.2007, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Karnal, as affirmed by the learned appellate authority, vide which the petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, stands allowed. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the property bearing No.688, Sector 16, near Namastey Chowk, G.T. Road, Karnal. The facts pleaded are, that the respondent-landlord is owner of the property under the tenancy of the petitioner, which was rented out to him at a monthly rent of Rs.1,250/- (Rupees one thousand two hundred and fifty only). The rent was payable in advance on 7th of every calendar Civil Revision No. 3407 of 2007 -2- month. The eviction of the petitioner-tenant was sought by the respondent-landlord on the ground, that the tenant had been irregular in making the payment of rent, which is used to be paid by way of cheque drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, M.P. Chowk, Karnal. Second plea on which the eviction was sought was, that the shop in dispute was bona fide required by the landlord for setting up business of his son Vipin Walia. It was also pleaded by the landlord that he was running a workshop in the rented premises, and had two sons namely, Vipin Walia and Rajesh Walia and both the brothers cannot work together, as there remains constant dispute between them. Other details required under Rules 4 and 6 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1984 were also pleaded. The petition was contested by the tenants by taking a preliminary objection that the respondent-landlord was habitual litigant, and has been filing repeated petitions for eviction against the petitioner. It was the case of the tenants/petitioner that on earlier occasion because of the litigation, a compromise was entered into between the parties and the rent was increased. The allegations were also made of assaulting the brother of the petitioner by the landlord. On merits, the petition was contested by claiming that petitioner was the tenant under the landlord since long time and that respondent No.2 (herein) was separate from the petitioner-tenant and had completely ceased to work with the petitioner and had started his business known as Vijay Engineering Works in Maya Puri, Karnal. The petitioner claimed to be running the business under the name and style of R.K. Engineering Welding Works, Namastey Chowk, G.T., Road, Civil Revision No. 3407 of 2007 -3- Karna, on the demised premised. The rent as demanded was said to be paid to the satisfaction of the landlord @ Rs.1,250/- (Rupees one thousand two hundred and fifty only). The stand of the petitioner was, that he was regularly paying the rent through bank instructions cheques/drafts for the last nine years. It was also the case of the petitioner-tenant that the landlord along with his son had established the business of repairing and servicing of diesel and petrol vehicles such as cars and jeeps on the G.T. Road within the city itself and at that place they were paying only Rs.175/- (Rupees one hundred and seventy five only) per month for two shops occupied by them since more than a decade. The plea of bona fide requirement was also denied on the plea that son of the respondent-landlord was not qualified person in the scheduled profession and, therefore, he was not capable of running independent business when the respondent-landlord and his sons were gainfully running business on two shops owned by Community Chaupal, whereas the petitioner has no other shop or premises to earn livelihood for himself and his family members. The petition was said to have been filed with mala fide intentions. In the replication, averments made in the petition were reiterated and those of written statement were denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues: - “1. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected from demised premises as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the petition is barred by principles of res judicata? OPR Civil Revision No. 3407 of 2007 -4- 3. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPR 4. Relief.” The learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of evidence found the need of the respondent-landlord to be bona fide to establish his son in the shop in dispute and, therefore, decided issue No.1 in favour of the respondent-landlord and against the petitioner. Issue No.2 was decided against the petitioner holding that petition was not barred by principle of res judicata. Issue No.3 was also decided in favour of the respondent- landlord and against the tenants/petitioner. Consequently, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition and ordered eviction of the tenant. In appeal, the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller were affirmed. At the time of motion hearing, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was, that the petition filed by the respondent-landlord was not competent, as the landlord could not seek eviction from a commercial building, on the ground of personal necessity. It is admitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that this plea is no more available, as it has been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that commercial building can also be got vacated by the landlord, for his personal use and occupation. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner challenged the findings of the learned authorities primarily on the ground that the bona fide need of the respondent-landlord could not have been accepted as he Civil Revision No. 3407 of 2007 -5- had not come to the Court with clean hands and failed to disclose the correct fact, that the respondent was in possession of two shops belong to the Community Chaupal, where he was running business with his sons. The contention of the learned senior counsel was, that business was well-established in both the shops, therefore, the need of landlord cannot be held to be bona fide. In any case, the correct fact of two shops in their possession, was not disclosed. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner also contends that that the petition was liable to be dismissed, as it was proved on record that the respondent-landlord was a chronic litigant and he had filed repeated petitions. This contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner deserves to be noticed to be rejected, as in case, the tenant fails to pay the rent within the time stipulated it is always open to the landlord to file a petition. None of the petitions filed by the respondent- landlord was found to be false or frivolous. In all the cases the tenant paid the rent and thereafter the petitions were withdrawn, therefore, it cannot be said that respondent-landlord committed an error in filing the petitions to recover rent, which was due to him. The first contention of the learned senior counsel also cannot be accepted. The respondent-landlord in his petition had disclosed that he was running business at Community Chaupal. In both the shops joint business was being run as is clear from the photograph placed on record showing that both the shops were joint and have one board. The respondent-landlord fairly pleaded that he needed the shop to settle his son Vipin Walia for the reason that both the brothers were not in good Civil Revision No. 3407 of 2007 -6- terms, and it is not possible for them to run business together. The learned authorities below were right in holding that no fault can be found if the landlord wanted to expand the business by establishing one son at independent place in the shop belonging to him. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be rejected merely for the reason that though the business being run in the shops belonging to Community Chaupal was disclosed by mentioning therein that business was being run, only for the reason that the landlord had failed to disclose whether it was one shop or two shops, when this fact had no effect on the need of landlord as set up and proved. It is not even the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the business is not being run there jointly by father and sons, as was the case set up by the respondent-landlord. For the reasons stated, finding no force in this petition it is ordered to be dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted three months time to vacate the tenanted premised, in view of the fact that he is running commercial business in the premises. Revision dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 21, 2010 R.S.