Rajinder Kumar Vs. Diwan Chand and Others - Court Judgment

CR No.7243 of 2013 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (106) CR No.7243 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.01.2014 Rajinder Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Diwan Chand and others .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** SABINA, J.

Respondent No.1 had filed ejectment petition against Suraj Bhan (deceased) through his legal representatives with regard to the shop in question on the ground of personal necessity and arrears of rent under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'Act').Case of respondent No.1, in brief, was that respondent No.1 and his nephew Eric Lal were owners of the property in question.

The property in question was let out on rent to Suraj Bhan for running a barber shop at a monthly rent of ` 33.50 ps.

and house tax @ ` 60/- per year.

After the death of Suraj Bhan, his legal heirs came in possession of the shop.

However, the tenant was Sandeep Sethi 2014.01.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.7243 of 2013 (O&M) -2- in arrears of rent w.e.f.01.01.2008 along with house tax.

Ashok Kumar, son of respondent No.1 was doing a private job at Mohali with a contractor.

Now Ashok Kumar had shifted to Kotkapura and wanted to run the business of readymade garments in the shop in question.

Petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 7 opposed the petition and pleaded that Ashok Kumar was not doing a private job as alleged.

In fact, Ashok Kumar was permanently settled at Mohali for the last about 26/27 yeaRs.The shop in question was not required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation.

The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 01.03.2011 dismissed the ejectment petition.

In an appeal filed by respondent No.1, the appellate authority set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller and allowed the appeal and ordered the ejectment of the tenant.

Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-tenant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Rent Controller had rightly dismissed the ejectment petition filed by respondent No.1.

In fact, respondent No.1 did not require the premises for his own personal use.

Son of respondent No.1 could not be said to be dependent on Ashok Kumar.

Hence, the ground of personal necessity was not available to respondent No.1.

Learned counsel has further submitted that Ashok Kumar was settled at Mohali and was running the business of a contractor.

The said fact was evident from the income tax returns proved on record which have been filed by Ashok Kumar.

The ration card in question Sandeep Sethi 2014.01.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.7243 of 2013 (O&M) -3- had also been got prepared by respondent No.1 with a view to create false evidence.

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Joginder Pal versus Naval Kishore Behal 2002 (2) Rent LR1wherein it was held as under:- Our conclusions are crystalized as under: (i) the words 'for his own use' as occurring in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 must receive a wide, liberal and useful meaning rather than a strict or narrow construction.

(ii) The expression __ landlord requires for 'his own use', is not confined in its meaning to actual physical user by the landlord personally.

The requirement not only of the landlord himself but also of the normal 'emanations' of the landlord is included therein.

All the cases and circumstances in which actual physical occupation or user by someone else, would amount to occupation or user by the landlord himself, cannot be exhaustively enumerated.

It will depend on a variety of factors such as inter-relationship and inter-dependence __ economic or otherwise, between the landlord and such person in the background of social, socio- religious and local customs and obligations of the Sandeep Sethi 2014.01.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.7243 of 2013 (O&M) -4- society or region to which they belong.

(iii) The tests to be applied are : (i) whether the requirement pleaded and proved may properly be regarded as the landlord's own requirement?.

and, (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of a given case actual occupation and user by a person other than the landlord would be deemed by the landlord as 'his own' occupation or user?.

The answer would, in its turn, depend on (i) the nature and degree of relationship and/or dependence between the landlord pleading the requirement as 'his own' and the person who would actually use the premises; (ii) the circumstances in which the claim arises and is put forward, and (iii) the intrinsic tenability of the claim.

The Court on being satisfied of the reasonability and genuineness of claim, as distinguished from a mere ruse to get rid of the tenant, will uphold the landlord's claim.

(iv) While casting its judicial verdict, the Court shall adopt a practical and meaningful approach guided by the realities of life.

(v) In the present case, the requirement of landlord of the suit premises for user as office of his chartered accountant son is the requirement of Sandeep Sethi 2014.01.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.7243 of 2013 (O&M) -5- landlord 'for his own use' within the meaning of Section 13(3)(a)(ii).In the present case, relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not in dispute.

The question that requires consideration is as whether respondent No.1 required the demised premises for his personal use and occupation.

Case of respondent No.1 is that his son Ashok Kumar was residing at Mohali but now he wanted to shift to Kotkapura and settle there and wanted to run the business of readymade garments in the shop in dispute.

There is no dispute qua the fact that Ashok Kumar was residing at Mohali and had also been filing his income tax returns.

However, now it is the case of respondent No.1 that his son wants to shift to Kotkapura.

It is a settled proposition of law that the landlord is the best judge qua his needs.

Respondent No.1 is residing in Kotkapura.

Apparently when his son Ashok Kumar will shift to Kotkapura, both of them will reside together.

In this situation, the fact that son of respondent No.1 requires the premises in question to enable his son to run the business in the demised premises cannot be said to be an unfounded requirement.

There is no quarrel qua the proposition of law settled by the Apex Court in Joginder Pal's case (supra) but the said decision fails to advance the case of the petitioner.

In the present case, Ashok Kumar after he shifts to Sandeep Sethi 2014.01.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.7243 of 2013 (O&M) -6- Kotkapura will reside with his father.

Hence, it can be assumed that there will be inter-relationship and interdependence between respondent No.1 and his son which entitled respondent No.1 to seek ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity.

Although Ashok Kumar is residing at Mohali and was filing his income tax returns but the son of the landlord cannot be forced to continue to reside at Mohali.

It is for the son of the landlord to decide as to whether he wants to reside at Mohali or at Kotkapura.

In these circumstances, the learned appellate authority had rightly allowed the ejectment petition filed by respondent No.1.

Further as per the Section 13 of the Act, protection has been given to the tenant that in case, the landlord does not use the premises in question for his personal use within the prescribed period or lets it out to somebody else, then the tenant can seek possession of the demised premises.

No ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE January 16, 2014.

sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2014.01.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document