Tenant's revision petition challenging eviction order on grounds of bonafide personal need and alleged mala fide filed by the owner. The court upheld concurrence of lower courts that landlord is the best judge of his need.
Revisions and appeals are dismissed maintaining eviction order.
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.
C.R. No.3792 of 2013 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.3792 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:04.07.2013
Director Archaeology & Museums, Haryana ....Petitioner
Versus
Kura Mal & others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present:Ms. Neena Madan, Addl.A.G.Haryana.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)
This is tenant's revision petition, challenging the order dated 01.06.2012 of the Rent Controller, Panchkula, whereby its eviction has been ordered from the demised premises on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord-respondent(s) and the judgment dated 18.04.2013 of the Appellate Authority, Panchkula, dismissing its appeal against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.
The respondents are the owners of the property in question i.e. SCO No.9, Sector 5, Panchkula and they lent out the said property to the petitioner as per the lease agreement dated 10.09.2005. The respondents sought eviction of the premises in dispute i.e. basement, first floor and second floor of SCO No.9, Sector 5, Panchkula on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as their personal bonafide necessity.
C.R. No.3792 of 2013 (O&M)
2
The petitioner contested the claim of the respondentlandlord(s) stating that the premises are not required for the personal bonafide use and occupation of the respondents. There is another tenant on the third floor in the same premises and no ejectment petition has been preferred against him. The present ejectment petition has been filed against the petitioner with mala fide intention and the same be dismissed. It may further be noticed that due rent was tendered by the petitioner.
The Rent Controller vide its order dated 01.06.2012 held that the petitioner was not in arrears of rent. However, the personal necessity of the landlords is proved as respondent-landlord(s) are the best judge of their need and premises in question are required by them for their personal use and occupation.
Appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority, vide judgment dated 18th April, 2013. While upholding the order of the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority held that since the landlords have asserted that they required premises to expand their business for their family and there being no evidence to rebut the same, need must be presumed bonafide. Moreover, in the instant case, the petitioner has not been able to point out any evidence on record to show that the need of the landlords was not genuine.
Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that personal bonafide necessity has not been proved on record as the landlords have not filed the petition against other tenant of third floor. Thus, it is proved that the instant petition
C.R. No.3792 of 2013 (O&M)
3
against the petitioner has been filed malafidely. Learned State counsel has further asserted that ground floor of the tenanted premises is lying vacant and the respondents can start their business there and the relief in the present petition be restricted to the basement floor of the demised premises and further that the petitioner is ready to negotiate for the same.
The argument raised is wholly fallacious.
It is well settled that need of the landlord is to be judged from his view point and the tenant cannot dictate terms in this regard. Both the Courts below have also recorded concurrent findings that tenanted premises are required by the landlords for their bonafide need. It may also be noticed at this stage that no challenge has been made to the findings of the Courts below or any other ground except as above. So far as argument raised that landlords could have filed the petition against another tenant, is again of no merit, as the plea itself will not prove the malafide of the respondents as there is no evidence of malafide. Moreover, the landlord is the best judge of his need and he knows much better about the portion of the demised premises to be vacated.
The plea raised before this Court that petitioner is ready to negotiate with the respondents for basement floor again seems to have been made only to avoid eviction order passed by the authorities below and need not be deliberated upon.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
July 04, 2013 savita
C.R. No.3792 of 2013 (O&M) 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether eviction order passed by Rent Controller and upheld by Appellate Authority based on bonafide personal need of landlord should be set aside pending litigation against other tenants.
Whether failure to file ejectment petition against another tenant proves mala fide intention in the current eviction petition.
Director Archaeology & Museums, Haryana
Kura Mal
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
