CR No.2548 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2548 of 2008 Date of Decision: 28 - 7 - 2010 Tilak Ram @ Tilak Raj and others ....Petitioners v. Ram Dia Ranga and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Amar Nath filed a petition for eviction of the tenant-petitioner on the ground that the Shop bearing No.MCK 451, Ward No.11 of Municipal Council, Kaithal was required for settling his son Lachhman, who had acquired skill of tailoring. Lachhman was unemployed and was at the mercy of his brothers. It was pleaded that Lachhman had not occupied any other shop in the urban area of Kaithal and no other shop was vacated by him after 1949 in the urban area of Kaithal. The second ground pleaded for eviction of the tenant was that tenant was in arrears of rent. On receipt of notice of the ejectment petition, the tenant filed the response and stated that on 20.11.2000 the rent had been tendered in Court alongwith the house tax. CR No.2548 of 2008 [2] It was stated that the demised premises was not required for Lachhman who was unemployed. Furthermore, the landlord alongwith his son Lachhman was doing the business of tailoring from a portion of their residential house, therefore, the ground for ejectment was a made up affair. The Rent Controller, Kaithal came to the conclusion that since the rent had been tendered, the ground of non payment of rent was not available to the landlord. However, the Rent Controller considered the fact that Lachhman was proficient in tailoring work and being unemployed, he required the premises for his survival, as he was dependent on his brothers. The Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenant. The findings of the Rent Controller were assailed by the tenant in appeal. The Appellate Authority concurred with the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller. Hence, the present revision petition. Mr.Amit Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised the following submissions before me: (a) That it was specifically pleaded in the eviction petition that no premises was vacated by the landlord after 1949 but in cross- examination it has surfaced that in the year 1979, one shop was rented out to Shingara Ram. (b) In cross-examination, the landlord has admitted that Lachhman was dependent upon his brothers. Counsel further states that rather the landlord was categoric to state that Lachhman was not dependent upon him. Therefore, the landlord was under no obligation to seek eviction of the demised premises for his son who was not dependent upon him. (c) Lastly, counsel stated that earlier the landlord had filed a petition for determining the fair rent and the same was determined in the CR No.2548 of 2008 [3] year 1998. Therefore, filing of the present petition in the year 2000 was only out of greed to seek enhancement of the rent. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. So far as the first argument that the statement made by the landlord before the Rent Controller is concerned, the same is not to be read in isolation. Indeed it has been explained by the landlord that in the year 1979 Lachhman was a minor. Therefore, this Court can deduce necessary inference that the shop cannot be kept vacant till son of the landlord attains majority and acquires skill in the craft of tailoring. So far as the second argument is concerned, it is to be examined in the context of social structure. Family is one unit where brothers and father, all contribute their resources, affection and compassion to bring up young members of the family. Even if the younger brother is looked-after by the elder brothers, but in our society unemployed son is to be settled by the father. He cannot be left at the mercy of the brothers. Therefore, if an unemployed son is to be married, he must have his own business. The argument that the son should continue with the brothers or should operate his business from the residential portion of the house cannot be accepted, as it makes no sense to carry on the business from the residential portion when the landlord owns his own shop. Therefore, the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below are accepted. Lastly, the fact that in the year 1998 the revision petition of the landlord for fixation of fair rent was decided, will not eclipse the right of the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant. It has come on record that petition for determining the fair rent was filed in the year 1990. If the Courts took eight years to determine the fair rent, it cannot be construed against the CR No.2548 of 2008 [4] landlord. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) July 28, 2010. JUDGE RC