Civil Revision No.6158 of 2007 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6158 of 2007 Date of decision : 4.3.2010 Vijay Kumar Petitioner Versus Jiwan Kumar Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Arun Pali, Senior Advocate with Mr. K.V.S.Kang, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. A plea raised by the respondent-landlord, for the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises, came to be negatived by the learned Rent Controller. The fortunes looked bright for the respondent-landlord in appeal. However, the Appellate Authority, in a finding of reversal, overturned the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and held that the respondent-landlord has been able to prove that he required the tenanted premises for personal bonafide necessity. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that the view obtained by the learned Rent Controller was well reasoned, particularly when the statement made by AW-2 Bakshi Lal, who was none else or other than the father of the respondent-landlord, was supportive of the finding that the Civil Revision No.6158 of 2007 -2- *** respondent-landlord is running business in the other part of the premises with his father and there was no need for him to get the tenanted premises for enhancement of the business. On that premise, the argument proceeds, it was recorded by the learned Rent Controller that the plea for personal necessity raised by the respondent-landlord was whimsical and not bonafide. In that very context, it is argued that the tenanted portion is a part of a bigger building which is already in possession of the family of the respondent-landlord and that part of the accommodation is sufficient for them to continue running that business. The plea raised is without any force. The reasons therefor are as under:- Though the respondent-landlord did not mention in the course of the petition that he is running the business in other part of the bigger building ( of which tenanted premises is a part), he did concede that fact (in the statement at the trial) that he is working there with his father and both of them are running milk powder business. In the course of the cross-examination, he testified that he is working with his father as an employee of the latter since the year 1978-79. That fact was noticed to be conspicuously absent from the pleadings and further no record of employment was produced. The income tax assessment record was also not produced. The account books of the business were also not produced. There also was not a plea that the respondent-landlord has strained relations with his father. These facts notwithstanding it cannot be wished away that here is landlord who is owner of the tenanted premises and who was, Civil Revision No.6158 of 2007 -3- *** for one reason or the other, inclined to have his own business by getting the premises vacated from the petitioner-tenant. How exactly, then, does the aspect of absence of above noticed pleadings affect the bonafides of the plea raised defies logical comprehension. Even if it is assumed that the respondent-landlord does not have strained relation with his father, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with his desire to grow up independently. The above noticed submission made by the respondent-landlord appears to stem from a general (misplaced though) conception that a landlord must indicate that he has strained relationship with whomsoever he is presently working. That misconception deserves to be negatived. A landlord/owner of the premises does not owe any explanation to indicate why he wants to get out of the bonding of the joint working even with the head of the family and why he wants to grow up independently. There are, ofcourse, enough riders in the law which would take care of the interest of the tenant in case the landlord does not proceed to utilise the tenanted premises for the purpose he obtained ejectment of the tenant. No other point was argued. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner- tenant have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. March 04, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE