Present: Mr.R.K.Gupta Advocate Vs. Arvind Kumar Khurania and Others - Court Judgment

CR-2148-2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CR-2148-2008 (O&M) 802 Date of decision: 6.2.2014 Sat Parkash .....petitioner Versus Arvind Kumar Khurania and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for respondents.

**** SABINA, J.

Respondents No.1 and 2 sought ejectment of the petitioner and respondent No.3 by filing an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.

Case of respondents No.1 and 2, in brief, was that the shop in question had been rented out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of ` 8,002/-.

The tenant was in arrears of rent and house tax since 15.6.1997 and had sublet the premises to respondent No.3.

The ejectment of the petitioner was also sought by the landlord on the ground that the premises in question was required by them for their own use and occupation.

Petitioner, in his written statement, denied the fact that respondents No.1 and 2 were owners of the rented premises.

However, it was averred that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

The rate of rent was also admitted Devi Anita 2014.02.13 09:53 I am approving this document Chandigarh CR-2148-2008 (O&M) 2 by the tenant.

However, it was denied that the petitioner had sublet the premises in question to respondent No.3.

It was also averred that the premises in question was not required by the landlord for their personal use and occupation.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:- “1.

Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected from the tenanted premises as detailed in para No.1 of the application on the following ground: i) That respondent No.1 is in arrears of rent and house tax since 15.6.1997 ?.

OPP ii) That respondent No.1 has sublet the tenanted premises to the respondent No.2 without the consent of the applicants/ landlords ?.OPP iii) That applicant No.1 requires the tenanted premises for his personal use and occupation ?.

OPP iv) Relief.”

.

Vide order dated 12.5.2006, the ejectment petition was allowed by the Rent Controller.

The said order was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.3.2008.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that need of the landlord was not genuine.

In fact, the landlord was already running his office in the residential house.

One shop on the fiRs.floor had been vacated during the pendency of the appeal and Devi Anita the same could have been used by the landlord.

The landlord had 2014.02.13 09:53 I am approving this document Chandigarh CR-2148-2008 (O&M) 3 other property in the vicinity but the said fact had not been taken in consideration by the courts below.

Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that petitioner No.1 wanted to run his office in the demised premises.

In the present case, ejectment of the petitioner was ordered on the ground of personal necessity.

Case of respondent No.1 was that he was practising advocate and required the tenanted premises for his personal use and occupation.

In this regard, respondent No.1 appeared in the witness box and deposed that he wanted to shift his office being run in his residential house.

Respondent No.1 further deposed that his residential house was in the outskirts of the city, whereas, the demised premises was in the heart of the city and was very suitable place for him to open up his office.

It further the case of respondent No.1 that his father was also a practising advocate but now due to his old age, he had stopped working.

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

Landlord-respondent No.1 is a practising advocate and is running his office in his residential house.

Now he wants to shift his office in the demised premises.

There is no reason to doubt the statement made by the landlord that he wanted to run his office in the demised premises.

Kura Ram was in possession of premises No.73/18.

After the death of Kura Ram, his legal representatives had vacated the Devi Anita premises during the pendency of the appeal.

The fact that 2014.02.13 09:53 I am approving this document Chandigarh CR-2148-2008 (O&M) 4 respondent No.1 was having residential house No.281 in the same locality is no ground to dismiss the ejectment petition filed by respondent No.1 and compel him to run his office in the residential house as it is for respondent No.1 to decide as to where he wants to run his office.

So far as property Nos.280/8 and 281/8 were concerned, respondent No.1 had stated that the same were ancestral property and they were in possession of the same since long.

Hence, there is no force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

During the pendency of the appeal, tenant moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on the ground that the landlord had got vacant possession of another shop and the landlord should use the said shop for running his office.

Case of the landlord in response to the application was that the need of the landlord was to be considered on the date of filing of the petition.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, application moved by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence was rightly dismissed as it was for the landlord to choose as to where he wanted to run his office.

Hence, the Courts below had rightly ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity.

No ground for interference by this Court is made out.

Dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE February 06, 2014 anita Devi Anita 2014.02.13 09:53 I am approving this document Chandigarh