Dismissed

Som Dutt Sharma v. Dharam Chand Mittal

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Mar 2013CR/1664/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision against an order of ejectment, the Court held that the death of the landlord's parents did not defeat his personal necessity claim for occupying the property. The High Court dismissed the revision and granted the tenant a five-month period to vacate.

What did the court decide?

The eviction order was sustained. The tenant was granted a period of five months to vacate the premises with an undertaking to continue paying rent.

Som Dutt Sharma Vs Dharam Chand Mittal — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CR No. 1664 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No. 1664 of 2013 Date of decision March 13 , 2013

¶5

Som Dutt Sharma s/o Sh. Nagina Ram Sharma

¶6

....... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Dharam Chand Mittal s/o Sh. Ram Sarup Mittal

¶9

........ Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

K. Kannan, J (oral).

¶14

The revision is against an other of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller accepting the plea of the landlord that he requires the premises for his own personal use and occupation. The tenant is in possession of the second floor consisting of a room and a kitchen and the landlord's plea was that he had occupied a varandha also. The landlord was a subsequent purchaser in the year 2005 and it appears that there is also a petition pending against the tenant for non-payment of rent. In the manner of pleading personal necessity, the landlord has pleaded that he is an Advocate by profession and he has a family consisting himself, his wife and a son. He has also averred that he has old parents as well. The requirement as pleaded by him is that he wants to keep his parents permanently with him and he wants to serve them in the old age and that they also want to reside with him. It is contended that the petitioner has a

¶15

CR No. 1664 of 2013 2

¶16

good practice and he requires at least three rooms for his own use, one room is to be used for his office, one room to be used as consulting room and one room for seating his staff, Junior clerks and typist. He has also urged that he has several guests visiting him and he would require the premises at the second floor as well.

¶17

The Rent Controller while considering the landlord's requirement found that during the pendency of the proceedings his parents had died and therefore the requirement pleaded by him was not established. This finding was vacated by the Appellate Court and the counsel points out to me that the Appellate Court was wrong in assuming that the mother is still alive. The argument is to the effect that if the parents had died the requirement has ceased.

¶18

I find the whole argument to be not realistic. A personal requirement for a landlord who has purchased the property and his contention is that he would want the whole house for himself for accommodating himself and his parents and for expansion of office cannot be whittled down by the mere fact that one or more of his immediate relatives have died or gone away. The space that a person pleads that he requires is a matter of personal choice. It is possible for some persons in India to live within a small area of 6' x 6' but still there are persons who live in a large area of 40000 sq.ft. It is one's own personal preference and cannot be subjected to a judicial intervention on a subjective assessment of what a Judge thinks would be appropriate for the landlord. The landlord ought to decide of what is convenient to him. In this case a person of social standing

¶19

¶20

CR No. 1664 of 2013

¶21

with his profession in a city may like to boast of a large house in occupation and it may be one method of promoting his own personal reckoning. I cannot find the personal use as having been lost by the fact that his parents have died.

¶22

If the Appellate Court has entered a wrong finding that the mother was alive, even then, it could make no difference. The Rent Controller was myopic in adjudging the issue of personal requirement only from the fact that one of the parents had died. I have given my own reasoning as to how the landlord's requirement was found to have been taken as established. I will therefore make no intervention in the order of ejectment made by the Appellate Authority. I sustain the order. The revision is dismissed.

¶23

Learned counsel argues that it is a residential house and he may be given time to vacate the house. Since the property is in Chandigarh and providing for a sufficient time to relocate himself, I will afford to the tenant a period of 5 months. The tenant shall give an undertaking that he will continue to pay the rent at the rate which he is paying during the period and that he will vacate the property within five months. If there is any default, the period given shall stand withdrawn and the landlord would be at liberty to enforce the same forthwith.

¶24

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶25

March 13, 2013 archana

Som Dutt Sharma v. Dharam Chand Mittal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Som Dutt Sharma v. Dharam Chand Mittal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Bindal and Ors. Vs Santan Dharam Mahila Mahavidhlaya Society Its President and Ors.

Kamla Soni Vs Mohinder Singh & Anr.

(O&M) Ajmer Singh Vs Surjit Singh

Amar Dass Dang Vs a K Mehta and Ors.

(O&M) Pushpa Rani and Anr. Vs Pritam Singh and Anr.

M/S Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers Vs Harjit Kau and Anr.