High Court dismissed the tenant's revision petition against an eviction order. The court upheld the lower Appellate Authority's finding that eviction was justified on grounds of personal necessity and bonafide requirement to shift business units.
Petitioner's civil revision petition dismissed; eviction of tenant from demised premises upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.7439 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.12.2011
Rajinder Kumar
-----Petitioner
Vs.
Tarawati & others
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present:Ms. Neena Madan, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
C.R. No.7439 of 2011
2
the petitioner at a monthly rent of 1,200/- per month besides house tax. It was further averred that in an earlier ejectment application which was filed for ejectment of the petitioner, on the ground of non-payment of rent, the Controller had held that the rate of rent was 600/- per month and the rent was tendered in Court till 30.4.2006. The matter with regard to rate of interest was sub judice. In the instant ejectment petition, eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and personal necessity. The ground of personal necessity was set up in the follow manner:-
‘The shop in dispute was required by the landlords for their personal use and occupation. It was averred that the respondent/landlords were residing in two rooms which were situated at the back of the shop in dispute. They had installed their fodder cutting machine in the shop was adjoining the shop in dispute. They were already running a rice sheller and a flour mill on the rear side of the shops and in front of their house. It was averred that the respondent/ landlord no.2 & 3 were married, having their children. The landlords had only two residential rooms in their possession. It was averred that now they want to shift their flour mill and rice sheller in the shop in dispute.’
C.R. No.7439 of 2011
3
the petitioner had already deposited the arrears of rent @ `600/per month. The other ground of personal necessity for eviction was also denied and it was averred that the respondents were having sufficient property to run their business and shop in dispute was not required by them at all. No replication was filed. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
C.R. No.7439 of 2011
4
installed behind the shop in dispute towards the South. It had also been averred that Jagir Chand and Shish Kumar were married and were having children and that they had only two residential rooms in their occupation which were insufficient for their needs. It has further been averred that they had also been running a dairy from the premises and they required the shop in dispute since they wanted to shift the flour mill and the rice sheller in the shop in dispute. In the written statement, it was denied that there was any Toka Machine, rice sheller or the flour mill. It was, however, admitted that the appellants/landlord were living behind the shop in dispute. The appellants/ landlord filed the sit plan Ex.A1. No site plan showing anything contrary to that shown in Ex.A1 was produced. While appearing as RW2 Rajinder Kumar admitted that the appellants were running a rice sheller and a flour mill. The other witness RW1 Rajbir also did not inspire any confidence. The learned Rent Controller went wrong in holding that the landlords could not shift the business in the shop in dispute because it was small in size. The learned Rent Controller further erred in holding that it had come in the cross examination of Jagir Chand that they had installed a fodder cutting machine in the adjoining shop which meant that the same was not being used for any business and therefore, they could shift their rice sheller in that shop and could install the fodder cutting machine behind the shop. The learned Rent Controller, still further, erred in holding that the landlords could have constructed a shop in the vacant portion which was lying with them. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Rent Controller did
C.R. No.7439 of 2011
5
not consider the settled principles of law at all. It was not for the tenant or the court to deuce that the shop in dispute was small and therefore, they could not do their business there or that they could do their business in the adjoining shop or that they could have constructed another shop. As held earlier, it was the landlord to decide where they had to do their business. When such a huge family is living in two rooms and earning its livelihood by running different kind of business from the same premises, then their need for another portion would be most bonafide. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon cases M/S Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. versus Vimalabhai Prabhulal & others (supra), Surinder Chopra versus Harbans Kaur (supra), Rasi Silk, by its partner, K. Arunachalam versus Rasi Silk T.A. Venkatachalam and 8 others (supra) and Parkash Ram versus Yashpal Sharma (supra). This court has therefore, no hesitation in holding that the appellants/ tenant have been able to prove that they required the shop in dispute for their personal and bonafide necessity.”
C.R. No.7439 of 2011
6
were in possession of the adjoining shop which could be used for any business therein. More so, the respondents have also failed to prove on record that they are a large family and they require more space. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, sufficient accommodation is available with the respondents and thus, the bona fide need for personal requirement as set up was absolutely not existent and thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
C.R. No.7439 of 2011
7
well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and the tenant cannot dictate his terms and conditions with regard to the suitability and use in a particular manner of the accommodation in landlords’ possession. Even otherwise, the finding recorded about personal necessity of the landlords is essentially a finding of fact. From the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the said finding is perverse or is based upon misreading or misinterpretation of law.
December 02, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should allow the tenant's revision petition challenging the eviction order based on personal necessity.
Whether the finding of personal necessity by the Appellate Authority was perverse or based on misreading of law.
Rajinder Kumar
Tarawati & others
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
