Dismissed

Kishan Lal v. Manohar Lal and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Dec 2008CR/4261/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an appellate order confirming eviction of a shop tenant. The High Court upheld the lower appellate authority's finding that the landlord had a bonafide need for the premises to start an auto repair business via an unemployed son, rejecting the tenant's claim that a vacant shop was available.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed, thereby affirming the eviction order and restoring the status quo of the tenant's removal.

Kishan Lal Vs Manohar Lal and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 4261 of 2008

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.

¶4

Civil Revision No. 4261 of 2008

¶5

Date of Decision: 16.12.2008

Kishan Lal

…Petitioner

Versus

Manohar Lal and Others

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

Present: Mr. S.K.Rana, Advocate for Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶14

In the present case, eviction petition was instituted in the year 1999. Eviction petition was filed by Dan Sahai Bamania. During the pendency of rent petition, he expired on 1.12.2004 as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. Eviction petition was instituted claiming rent of the shop to be Rs.1,200/- per month, which was rented out to the petitioner-tenant, who is engaged in the business of sale of Auto Spare Parts. It was stated that the rent since 1.1.1996 to 31.7.1999 has not been paid and tenant is in arrears of rent. Second ground pleaded was that the shop is required on the ground of personal necessity as Dan Sahai, landlord, intended to start business of Auto Repair along with his son Dev Dutt.

¶15

A written statement was filed in which it was stated that the

¶16

Civil Revision No. 4261 of 2008

¶17

¶18

landlord has wrongly claimed the rent to be Rs.1,200/- per month, in fact rent was Rs.700/- per month including house tax. It was further stated that the tenant has been paying the rent regularly and no ground of personal necessity has been made out as another shop was got vacated by the landlord from Om Parkash, another tenant, about two years back, which is lying vacant and locked.

¶19

Replication was filed, in which averments made in the eviction petition were reiterated and that of written statement were denied.

¶20

Learned Rent Controller formulated the following issues:-

¶21

What is the rate of rent between the parties? OPP

¶22

Whether the tender of rent made by the respondent to the Court is short and invalid? OPP

¶23

Whether the petitioner requires the demised premises for his personal assents? OPP

¶24

Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

¶25

Whether the petition is estopped by his own act and conduct? OPR

¶26

Whether petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR

¶27

Relief.

¶28

Son of the landlord Dev Dutt appeared as PW.1. He also examined Bhoop Singh as PW.2, and Megh Shyam Sharma as PW.3,

¶29

Civil Revision No. 4261 of 2008

¶30

¶31

whereas tenant examined Raju as RW.1, Ved Parkash as RW.2 and he himself appeared as RW.3.

¶32

Case set out by the tenant was that Dev Dutt had obtained matriculation certificate Ex.P1, and certificate of I.T.I. in Auto Repair Ex.P2. Site plan of the shop Ex.P3 was also proved.

¶33

Learned Rent Controller held that the rate of rent is Rs.700/and since the amount of rent has been tendered, therefore, ground of non payment of rent is not available. Learned Rent Controller further formulated the view that the adjoining shop was vacated by another tenant in the year 1999 and that can be used by the landlord, therefore, the ground of personal necessity was not made out.

¶34

An appeal was filed by the landlord, in which this finding has been reversed by learned Appellate Authority holding that Dev Dutt has obtained a Diploma from I.T.I. regarding two wheeler/three wheeler repair. This diploma was obtained in the year 1987. The Court further held that since Dev Dutt is holding a professional diploma and is unemployed, his need for opening the workshop is genuine. The Court further relied upon the testimony of PW.2 Bhoop Singh who had stated that Dan Sahai Bamania, landlord, expired during the pendency of petition was a retired Haryana Government employee. The Court further held that another shop is lying vacant. This fact was not put to Dev Dutt, PW.1. The Court believed that Dev Dutt during the cross-examination had denied this fact and, therefore, need of the landlord is to be adjudged from his perspective. Landlord cannot be deprived of his shop on the ground of personal necessity on the ground that he should carry his business from one shop and not from the other shop. The Court also

¶35

Civil Revision No. 4261 of 2008

¶36

¶37

took into consideration that Dan Sahai Bamania died and and during his life time, he could not settle his son.

¶38

The view formulated by learned Appellate Authority is one view which is possible. It cannot be said to be perverse nor the approach of learned Appellate Authority can be held to be perfunctory.

¶39

Mr. S.K.Rana, Advocate, appearing for Mr. R.M.Singh, Advocate, for the tenant has shown me the site plan which shows that three shops which have been constructed and size of each shop is 20'x10'. The petitioner is a tenant in shop No.3. Shop No.2 Maha Laxmi Motors is on rent. He has stated that shop No.1 is vacant, therefore, same has not been occupied by the landlord and he has commenced no business in that shop. Therefore, learned counsel contends that the finding of learned Rent Controller could not have been reversed by learned Appellate Authority. As stated earlier, need of the landlord is to be viewed from his perspective. Tenant cannot dictate his own terms. The bonafide personal need is to be adjudged from the view of the landlord. It is a fact that Dev Dutt is unemployed and he has a requisite professional qualification to carry on the business of Auto Repair Mechanic. Therefore, no fault can be found with the finding of learned Appellate Authority.

¶40

Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed.

¶41

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge

¶42

December 16, 2008 “ DK ”

Kishan Lal v. Manohar Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Lal v. Manohar Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Bhandari Vs Sanjay Gupta

Mohd. Salimudin and Anr. Vs Somi Devi and Anr.

Prem Chand and Anr. Vs Surinder Kumar and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Jaswinder Sharma

Roshan Singh Vs Kuldip Singh

The Rewari Central Coop.Bank Ltd. Vs Registrar Coop.Sty.Hy.Chd.Etc