CR No.5679 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.5679 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 13.10.2009 **** M/s. Satpal Pawan Kumar Commission Agent & Ors. . . . . Petitioners VS. Vijay Kumar . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of 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? **** Present: Mr. I.D. Singla, Advocate for the petitioners ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) 1) This revision petition is directed by the tenant, who has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises comprising shop No.79-A situated in the Grain Market at Cheeka, District Kaithal, by the Rent Controller, Guhla, vide his order dated 26.04.2006, which has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority, Kaithal vide its judgement dated 03.09.2009. 2) The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking the petitioner’s ejectment from the shop in dispute, inter alia, on the ground that (i) the petitioner is in arrears of rent and house tax w.e.f. 1st January, 1998; (ii) the premises is required by him for his personal use and occupation for doing his own business. CR No.5679 of 2009 - 2 - 3) Both the Courts have concurrently held that there is no other shop owned or in possession of the respondent-landlord and that he was earlier running some business in Safidon, District Jind but on account of his involvement in a false criminal case, he wants to shift his business at Cheeka where there is no other commercial property owned or possessed by him. Since the respondent-landlord is already in business, the Courts below have found his need to be genuine and bona fide. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant vehemently urges that the respondent has failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that his plea of shifting business from Safidon to Cheeka is a false pretext only to seek the petitioner’s eviction. It is also argued that the respondent has sought partial eviction which is impermissible in law. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the contentions noticed above. 6) It is the admitted case of the parties that the shop in dispute was owned by Pripta Devi – real sister of the respondent, as it fell to her share in terms of the Civil Court decree (Ex.R7). Pripata Devi entered into witness box (AW6) and has testified on affidavit (Ex.AW6/A) that she has relinquished her ownership rights in favour of her brother, namely, Vijay Kumar - the respondent and has no concern whatsoever with the property. In this view of the matter the petitioner-tenant has no locus standi to question the status of the respondent as a landlord or the owner of the demised premises. CR No.5679 of 2009 - 3 - 7) As regards the partial eviction, both the Courts below have categorically held that there was earlier a dispute between the parties with regard to the tenancy rights of the petitioner over whole of the premises or a part thereof. The controversy was pending before this Court in RSA No.1208 of 2001, filed at the instance of the respondent-landlord (his sister). Suffice it to observe that while the landlord was asserting that the petitioner is a tenant only in the red portion of the site plan (Ex.A1), the tenant was asserting his tenancy qua the portion shown in yellow colour also. The respondent-landlord made a specific averment in the eviction petition that though the petitioner- tenant was inducted in the portion shown in red colour only, yet to avoid any technicality, he seeks his eviction from the red as well as yellow portion shown in the site plan (Ex.A1). After the dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal preferred by the respondent-landlord/his sister by this Court on 26.02.2003, the petitioner’s tenancy stood proved qua red as well as yellow portions. Since the respondent-landlord has made a specific prayer for eviction of the petitioner from both the portions shown as red and yellow in the site plan (Ex.A1), it is difficult to entertain the petitioner’s objection that it’s a case of seeking partial eviction. 8) As regards the personal necessity of the respondent-landlord, there is not an iota of evidence led by the petitioner that any other premises is owned or possessed by him at Cheeka. There is a concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below that the respondent requires the premises for his own use and CR No.5679 of 2009 - 4 - occupation. No case of misreading of the evidence and/or of any perversity in the findings returned by the Courts below, is made out by the petitioner. No case to interfere with the impugned order is, therefore, made out. 9) Dismissed. 10) However, keeping in view the circumstances explained on his behalf, the petitioner is permitted to retain the possession of the demised premises till 30th November, 2009 subject to payment of arrears of rent, if any, and future rent upto 30th November, 2009 within one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and subject to the undertaking that he will hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent-landlord before 30th November, 2009 subject to his further right/legal remedy. 11)Dasti (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 13.10.2009 shonkar