IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5182 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 18th August, 2010 Yashpal … Petitioner Versus Bakshish Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Wadhawa Singh had two sons, namely Bakshish Singh, Harjit Singh, and four daughters. He bequeathed his property in favour of both of his sons, to the exclusion of his daughters. It has also come in evidence that Harjit Singh had sold the property falling to his share. The petitioner-tenant herein has assailed the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur and affirmed by the appellate authority, on an eviction petition filed by respondent-Bakshish Singh. Bakshish Singh instituted an eviction petition on 21st August, 2001 with a prayer that he was going to retire on 31st February, 2002 as a Boiler Controller from Punjab State Electricity Board and after his retirement, the shop in question was required by him for his personal use and occupation to start a business of readymade garments in order to supplement his income. It was further stated that on the Chaubara of the shop in question, which was already lying vacant, he intended to put his residence. Civil Revision No.5182 of 2010 (O&M) The petitioner-tenant not only doubted the ground of personal necessity projected by Bakshish Singh, but also questioned the credentials of Bakshish Singh as a landlord and owner of the property in question. A specific stand was taken by the petitioner-tenant that Bakshish Singh was not the landlord and owner of the property qua him. It was pleaded that the rent was collected by Harjit Singh or one Santokh Singh, an attorney of Harjit Singh. The Rent Controller examined the rent-receipts Ex.R1 to Ex.R28 and came to a conclusion that Santokh Singh was appointed as an attorney by Bakshish Singh and he used to collect the rent on behalf of Bakshish Singh. To prove himself as a landlord, Bakshish Singh placed on record the power of attorney executed by him in favour of Santokh Singh, empowering him to collect the rent. Cancellation of power of attorney was also brought on record. Furthermore, Sri Krishan-Vasika Navis was examined as AW-5 to prove the Will executed by Wadhawa Singh in favour of his sons, Harjit Singh and Bakshish Singh. Prikshat Kumar AW-2 was also examined to say that Harjit Singh, brother of the respondent-Bakshish Singh, had sold his property. Ex.A10 was also proved to show that the property was divided between the brothers, on the basis of which mutation was sanctioned in favour of the respondent- landlord Bakshish Singh. Thus, both the Courts below gave a finding of fact that on the basis of the evidence adduced, the relationship of landlord-tenant stood proved between the petitioner and the respondent. Furthermore, both the Courts below also held that since the respondent had retired in the year 2002, the ground of personal necessity pleaded by him stood proved. The issue regarding non-payment of rent was not followed-up by the respondent due to payment of rent made by the petitioner-tenant. 2 Civil Revision No.5182 of 2010 (O&M) Mr.Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate appearing for the petitioner-tenant, has vehemently assailed the findings recorded by both the Courts below that the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent- Bakshish Singh. However, he has not been able to dislodge the observation of this Court that in case Santokh Singh was acting as an attorney of the respondent-Bakshish Singh and the property stands on his name in the record of rights, as to how the finding regarding relationship of landlord-tenant was erroneous. To challenge the ground of personal necessity, Mr.Dadwal has submitted that the respondent had retired as a Boiler Attendant from Punjab State Electricity Board and he has no experience to do the business of readymade garments, therefore, the same will be a failure and the ground has been set-up merely to cause eviction of the petitioner-tenant. This Court cannot set aside the finding returned regarding the ground of personal necessity, simply on the ground that the business, which the landlord intends to start, may not be successful. It is for the landlord to decide for himself and take a plunge. The ground of personal necessity cannot be denied merely on an assumption. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 18, 2010 rps 3