CR No.7719 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7719 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.12.2011 Gurpal Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Surinder Singh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 4.5.2007 of the Rent Controller, Gurdaspur whereby his eviction has been ordered from the demised premises and the judgment dated 17.9.2011 of the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur dismissing his appeal against the aforesaid order. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that eviction of the petitioner has been ordered by the Authorities below on the ground that the demised premises are required by the respondent-landlord for his bona fide use and occupation. In the ejectment petition, it has been averred by the respondent-landlord that he requires the shop in dispute for his bona fide use and occupation. He is an old man doing business of 'Kharad' and preparation of gates and grills in the name and style of M/s Mohinder Singh Engineering Works with the assistance and help of his two sons. Both his sons are married having children. They are having separate mess because recently difference cropped between them due to quarrel. CR No.7719 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Now due to strained relations, it has become difficult to work and run business jointly in the shop in possession of applicant because Gurpal Singh, his son has taken forcible control of entire business and Surinder Pal has been virtually ousted. Thus, the respondent-landlord wants his son Surinder Singh to start his own business for which he requires the shop in dispute. While upholding the findings of the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority observed as under: “In order to prove its bonafide the LRs of Mohinder Singh have appeared in the witness box. Jaswant Singh wife of Mohinder Singh has appeared as AW-1. She was the attorney holder of Mohinder Singh. While appearing in the witness box she has fully proved that she requires the shop bonafidely for his son Surinder Pal. She has categorically stated that his other son Gurpal Singh has taken forcible control of business and now she wants his son Surinder Singh to start his business. In her cross examination she has stated that STD is in the name of her son Surinder Singh, Gurpal Singh, the present appellant, in his cross examination has admitted it to be correct that in the passage, which leads to the house of the respondent from G.T. Road side, there is STD booth in the said passage. The booth has width of 4/4-1/2 feet. He has also admitted that the wife of the applicant is running the STD booth. He has also admitted that the respondent/applicant is not in possession of any other shop or non-residential building in the urban area of Dhariwal except the shop shown in Ex.A5. Learned Rent Controller has rightly observed and appreciated the fact that the petitioner/respondent despite of having his own premises is running the STD booth in the passage/gallery and this is hardship of the petitioner/respondent. Learned Rent Controller has fully appreciated the legal preposition and law cited by both the parties. Learned Rent Controller has rightly come to CR No.7719 of 2011 (O&M) 3 the conclusion that dismissal of the earlier rent petition against one of the other tenant does not come in the way of separate rent petition against the other tenant. Learned Rent Controller has rightly relied upon the law laid down by Hon'ble High Court as well as by Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the landlord requires premises for his son or grandson or member of the family, it is the bonafide need. In 2009(1) Rent Control Reporter 422 (supra) where two brothers were running Karyana Shop and younger brother wanted to separate and start independent business in shop possession of tenant, the need was held bonafide by our Hon'ble High Court while observing that growth of families and transformation of joint families into nuclear families is a recent phenomena, therefore, if two brothers want to part gracefully and start independent business, tenant cannot urge that they are barred from doing so on account of his hardship. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Ashok Kumar Vs. Ved Parkash & Ors. 2010 (1) Civil Court Cases 316' that when the eviction petition was filed by landlord for the personal necessity of his son after the death of landlord, the eviction petition does not abate as the requirement of building was for son who presently is the landlord. In the present case also after the death of Mohinder Singh, Gurpal Singh and Surinder Singh, his sons, have become the owners to the extent of ½ share each and they have right to get the demised premises evicted. Learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that it is not the comparative hardship of the tenant which has to be seen, but it is the comparative hardship of the petitioner which has to be seen. Learned Rent Controller has fully appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. Learned Rent Controller has also fully appreciated the law cited by both the parties and has rightly come to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. The CR No.7719 of 2011 (O&M) 4 present eviction petition was filed out of bonafide need and not out of greed. Thus, there is no illegality, infirmity in the order passed by learned trial court. The same requires no interference. Resultantly, the present rent appeal is without any merit, hence the same is dismissed. Memo of costs be prepared. Lower court file be sent back immediately alongwith copy of judgment. Present rent appeal filed be consigned to Record Room.” Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding that the shop in dispute is required by the respondent-landlord to settle his second son Surinder Pal Singh to start his own business. Question of personal necessity of the landlord is essentially a finding of fact. No material evidence has been pointed out on the basis of which finding of fact recorded by the Authorities below can be set aside. Dismissed. December 14, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE