Dismissed

Raj Rani v. Naresh Mehta

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Aug 2013CR/115/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a tenant's revision petition, the High Court upheld the eviction order. It held that the lower authorities' concurrent finding that the landlord had a bona fide need to occupy the premises could not be interfered with, rejecting the claim that the landlord had sufficient alternative accommodation.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed, affirming the eviction order against the petitioner.

Raj Rani Vs Naresh Mehta — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

�� 

¶2

�� !�"#$� Date of decision: 26^th August, 2013

Raj Rani

� Petitioner

Versus

Naresh Mehta

� Respondent

��#%��&�'��#��(��)�(��)�#��

¶9

Present: Mr. Madan Gopal Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

��)�(��)�#��*��

¶12

This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 01.03.2011 of the Rent Controller, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby her eviction has been ordered from the demised premises on the ground that the respondent0landlord needs the same for his personal bonafide need and further challenging the judgment dated 07.11.2012 of the Appellate Authority, Yamuna Nagar dismissing her appeal against the aforesaid order of her eviction.

¶13

Suffice it to say that eviction of the petitioner has been ordered from the demised premises on the ground that the same is required by the respondent0landlord for his bonafide use and occupation. While setting up his need for bonafide use and occupation of the demised premises, the respondent0landlord has averred that the property in question is required by him for his personal use as he is not

¶14

Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.30 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶15

¶16

��

¶17

having any other house either as a tenant or as an owner in possession within the municipal limits of Yamuna Nagar and at present he is residing with his father as a licencee at Mehta Niwas. He further stated that his father is pressurizing him to get the house vacated as his family has grown up and that he had purchased the house in question for his personal use and occupation and he is in dire need of the same.

¶18

The ground of personal necessity of the respondent0 landlord was opposed by the petitioner0tenant submitting that the respondent0landlord was in possession of sufficient accommodation/ portion of the residential house of his father who is living with him and is an aged person and as such dependent upon his son. The petitioner further submitted that the building where the respondent0landlord resides with his father consists of three rooms and there is sufficient accommodation available in that building; whereas there are only two rooms in the property in question and out of these rooms, one room is already in possession of the respondent0landlord.

¶19

To prove the aforesaid ground of eviction, respondent0 landlord got examined himself as PW01 and deposed that his family consists of his two grown0up children and wife, and at present he is residing at the house of his father wherein besides the family of the respondent0landlord, his father and the family of his brother also reside. The said house owned by his father is 90 square yards. He further deposed that in the house in question, one room is with the petitioner0 tenant and one room is with him, and it was not possible for him to put

¶20

Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.30 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶21

¶22

��

¶23

up his family in one room, and thus, the room under occupation of the petitioner is required by him for his family. His version has been corroborated by PW02 Mangat Ram, PW03 Vikas Mehta and PW04 Ashok Bali.

¶24

On the other hand, petitioner0tenant appeared as RW01. In her cross0examination, she admitted that at present the respondent0 landlord is putting up in the house of his father where his brother also resides with his family. She further admitted that both the respondent0 landlord and his brother are living there with their respective families and they also have children who are college going. She further admitted that the house in question is of 49 square yards.

¶25

In view of the facts, as noticed above, the Rent Controller found that the landlord has proved his need and requirement for the demised premises for his own occupation and there was nothing on record to suggest that his need was not bonafide. The concluding part of the order of Rent Controller reads thus:

¶26

��

¶27

Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.30 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

��

��

Aggrieved from the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner0tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 07.11.2010. While upholding the findings of the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority observed as under:

¶32

�!"��#�� $%�&�� '�� (��)!�)�+�)�� ,��'�,�� &�� )-�&��' �,��

¶33

Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.30 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶34

¶35

��

¶36

��.�� /��.��(�� .��(�� 0�� 1�� )!��'��)*-�� ' �� 1��

¶37

!2�� (��'��3��4�� +�� )��5��3��4�� 0��6��0�� +�� (��&��6��3��4��0��6�� 0��

¶38

Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.30 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶39

¶40

��

¶41

�� 5��&��/��6��3��4�� 0��6��0�� 0��7��

¶42

Still not satisfied, the petitioner0tenant has filed the instant revision petition challenging the aforesaid orders of the authorities below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the bonafide need of the respondent0landlord is not proved, as from the facts on record it is clearly established that the eviction petition has been filed by the respondent0landlord malafidely as he has purchased the property in dispute only on 23.01.2009 and filed the instant eviction petition just two months thereafter and this fact itself suggests that the need of the respondent0landlord is not bonafide, as no one will purchase the property wherein a tenant is sitting and thus, there is no bonafide need of the respondent0landlord in the instant case and it is only a wish of the respondent to get the property vacated under the garb of his personal need.

¶43

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent0 landlord has vehemently argued that both the authorities below, after

¶44

Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.30 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶45

¶46

��

¶47

appreciation of evidence, have recorded a concurrent finding that the respondent0landlord is in need of the demised premises for his bonafide need and occupation, and there is no material evidence on record to contradict the same; and thus, this Court should not interfere in the concurrent findings so recorded.

¶48

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders of both the authorities below.

¶49

The facts, as noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, could not be disputed by the counsel representing the petitioner0tenant. Admittedly, the respondent0landlord is not having any other accommodation except the house of his father where he is living as a licencee. Admittedly, the respondent0landlord is having two grown0up children and it is for him to accommodate/adjust the needs of his family. It is well settled that requirement of the landlord has to be examined keeping in view his needs. Thus, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner0tenant that the respondent0landlord is having sufficient accommodation, is liable to be rejected.

¶50

In view thereof, I find no merit in this petition.

¶51

Dismissed.

¶52

�!��)�(��)�#��$� ��

¶53

�+,+�-��.*��  ��

¶54

Singh Rattan Pal 2013.08.30 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Raj Rani v. Naresh Mehta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Rani v. Naresh Mehta

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

Yogeet & Ors. Vs Harpreet Singh Sodhi

Malkiat Singh Vs Isher Dass and Ors.

Lakhvir Kaur Vs Charan Kaur and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar and Anr. Vs Arvind Kumar and Ors.

Sadhu Ram Rohilla Vs Surender

Surinder Pal Singh Vs Bhagwan Singh