CR No.4050 of 2014 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4050 of 2014(O&M) Date of Decision: June 4, 2014.
Narinder Kumar Sharma @Gullu .....PETITIONER (s) Versus Harinder Singh and others .....RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL Present: Mr.Rajinder Singh Raj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Anuj Raura, Advocate for the respondents-caveatORS.***** 1.
Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2.
To be referred to the reports or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?.
***** LISA GILL, J.
The petitioner, who is a tenant in the demised premises has impugned the decisions dated 15.04.2013 and 06.05.2014 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, respectively, whereby his eviction has been ordered from the tenanted premises i.e., the FiRs.Floor of House No.2095, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh.
The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, Smt.
Harmohan Kaur had filed the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Singh Omkar 2014.07.01 02:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.4050 of 2014 [2].Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') claiming that she is owner/landlord of the demised property i.e., House No.2095, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh.
The petitioner was inducted as a tenant at a rent of `8,000/- per month on the FiRs.Floor of the said house w.e.f.01.08.2004 excluding the water and electricity charges.
The eviction was sought, inter alia, on the grounds firstly, the tenant is in arrears of rent reckonable from 01.07.2005; secondly, the tenant alongwith his wife Smt.
Madhu Sharma and other family members had shifted to their own house from the month of December, 2005 and therefore, he had ceased to occupy the demised tenanted premises for a continuous period of over four months without reasonable cause; and thirdly, the landlord-respondent prayed that the demised premises was required for her own bona fide need and personal necessity because she alongwith her husband, her divorced daughter, namely, Smt.
Gunjit Kaur and son & daughter of Gunjit Kaur were living together on the ground floor and the accommodation on the ground floor was insufficient for all of them.
Therefore, there was a great discomfort and inconvenience caused to them specially in the evening of their lives.
It was also submitted that she had not vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act.
The Rent Controller has allowed the petition and directed the eviction of petitioner from the demised premises vide impugned order dated 15.04.2013 on the ground that the respondent-landlord has fully established that the premises is required for her bona fide need and requirement.
The appeal filed by the present petitioner against the said order was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide impugned order dated 06.05.2014 and the Singh Omkar 2014.07.01 02:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.4050 of 2014 [3].eviction of the petitioner from the demised tenanted premises has been upheld.
The petitioner has challenged the aforementioned decisions primarily on the ground that there is enough accommodation available on the ground floor of the demised premises and the necessity of the petitioner is not genuine or bona fide.
Furthermore, the provisional rent as fixed by the Rent Controller had been duly paid by the petitioner.
It is vehemently contended that the landlady has since passed away and her husband, Sh.
Harinder Singh is living on the ground floor of the house and the respondents have failed to prove that anyone else is living with them on the ground floor.
Reference has been made to the part of the testimony of PW4 Harinder Singh to suggest that none of the children are residing in the demised premises.
It is also contended that the requirement of a married daughter cannot be termed to be the personal requirement of the landlord.
It is further stated that this petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by the respondent-landlord is nothing but a counter-blast to a civil suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner on 13.08.2007.
The petitioner had also lodged a DDR No.43 dated 18.07.2007 when the landlord had started harassing the petitioner by disrupting the water and electricity supply to the portion occupied by the petitioner.
Having heard learned counsel and going through the documents on record, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the impugned orders whereby eviction of the petitioner has been directed.
This is so for the reason that the bona fide need and requirement of the landlord has clearly been proved on record.
It has been proved on record that the divorced/separated daughter of the landlord, namely, Smt.
Gunjit Kaur Singh Omkar 2014.07.01 02:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.4050 of 2014 [4].alongwith her two children is residing on the ground floor of the demised premises and there is a paucity of accommodation on the ground floor which causes discomfort and inconvenience.
In this respect, I have perused the statement of RW1 Narinder Kumar Sharma, the petitioner, the certified copy of which has been shown to me at the time of hearing.
The petitioner himself could not deny the factum of Smt.
Gunjit Kaur living on the ground floor of the demised premises alongwith her two children.
The argument of the petitioner that the decree of divorce has not been produced on record by the landlord and, therefore, it cannot be said that she is living separate from her husband, is clearly untenable.
The requirement of the landlord on this count i.e., one of the daughteRs.who is admittedly living separate/divorced from her husband alongwith her children, is definitely a personal and bona fide necessity of the landlord.
It is also to be noticed that the other children would also necessarily be visiting the parents, therefore, the requirement and necessity of the landlord cannot be negated.
It is further apparent from the record that House No.2381, Phase XI, Mohali has been purchased by the petitioner.
This factum is admitted by the petitioner in his testimony though it is stated that it is his son, who is residing in the said premises at Mohali with his family.
When pointedly asked during the couRs.of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner candidly and fairly admitted the purchase of the said house in Mohali.
The petitioner did not place on the record any document to show that he was actually living in the demised premises.
Admittedly, no receipt of the electricity and water charges since the year 2005 have been produced.
No bills etc.regarding the purchase of Singh Omkar 2014.07.01 02:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.4050 of 2014 [5].newspapers or a gas connection has been placed on record.
It is admitted by the petitioner that he had landline phone connection upto the year 2008-2009, which was thereafter got disconnected.
The petitioner's elder brother is living in House No.2068, Sector 20, Chandigarh as per his admission.
The Rent Controller has, however, held that the landlord has failed to prove that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the premises continuously for a period of four months from the date of filing of the petition only on the ground that petitioner was served personally on the address of the demised premises.
The Appellate Authority has not touched this issue on the ground that no cross-appeal or objection has been filed by the landlord.
Be that as it may, even though it cannot always be necessary for a litigant to challenge a particular finding in a situation where the main relief has actually been granted to him, in the present conspectus of facts, the requirement of the landlord is duly proved as well as the fact that the petitioner-tenant has no right to continue in possession of the demised premises.
The requirement of the landlord is definitely to be viewed from his perspective and not that of the tenant as the landlord is admittedly the best judge of his or her need.
The reference to the decision of this Court in State of Punjab and another v.
Rajinder Jain and another, 2010(3) RCR (Civil) 45 has been rightly made by the Appellate Authority.
No other argument was raised.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any jurisdictional error or any other infirmity in the impugned orders or any illegality and material irregularity has been committed by learned Singh Omkar 2014.07.01 02:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.4050 of 2014 [6].courts below in passing the impugned orders or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
Resultantly, the present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit with no order as to costs.
( LISA GILL ) June 4, 2014.
JUDGE ‘om’ Singh Omkar 2014.07.01 02:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh