The court dismissed a civil revision under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act challenging an ejectment order. It held the landlord bona fide required the premises for his business after returning from Kuwait, finding no ground for interference.
The civil revision petition was dismissed, upholding the ejectment 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.
Civil Revision No. 365 of 2014 (O&M)
-1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 365 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.1.2014.
Ashok Kumar
.......Petitioner
Versus
Pavnish Mitter Malhan
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner.
SABINA, J.
Respondent had filed the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question on the ground of arrears of rent and personal use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 1.12.2011 allowed the ejectment petition on the ground of personal necessity. The said judgment was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 12.12.2013. Hence, the present petition by the petitionertenant.
Case of the respondent-landlord, in brief, was that he was co-owner of the premises in question and had purchased the same in his own name and in the name of his wife and daughter. At that time, respondent was working in Kuwait. Petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the year 2004 through his attorney and a
Singh Gurpreet 2014.01.30 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 365 of 2014 (O&M) -2-
registered lease deed was executed for the period starting from 1.1.2004 to 31.12.2008. The rate of rent was fixed at 19,500/per month with 5½% increase every year on the last paid rent. Presently the rate of rent was 26,875/- excluding water and electricity charges. The premises in question was required by the respondent for his own personal use as he wanted to start computer business in the premises in question.
Petitioner, in his written statement, admitted the factum of tenancy. However, it was denied that the respondent required the premises in question for his own personal use. It was averred that the ejectment petition has been filed with a view to enhance the rate of rent.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:-
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree for ejectment on the ground of non payment of rent? OPD
2. Whether the premisses are required for personal use and occupation by the petitioner? OPP
3. Whether petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands? OPD
4. Whether petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition? OPD
5. Relief.
Parties led their evidence in support of their case.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Courts below had erred in allowing the ejectment petition on the ground of personal necessity. In fact, respondent did not require the premises in question for his own personal use and
Singh Gurpreet 2014.01.30 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 365 of 2014 (O&M)
-3-
occupation.
In the present case, relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or execution of the lease deed in question is not in dispute. Respondent had purchased the SCO in question while he was working in Kuwait. However, now the respondent has returned back to India in the year 2008 and wants to run computer business in the premises in question. Respondent wants to use the basement of the premises in question as a store whereas he wants to open an office from the back portion of the first floor. So far as the premises on the first floor is concerned, the same was vacated by the tenant in view of compromise effected between the parties. Respondent wants to use the premises on the ground floor as a showroom for display of products. The Courts below rightly held that there was no reason to disbelieve the statement of the landlord. The landlord had returned back to India from Kuwait and wants to start his business in the premises in question.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
January 27, 2014 Gurpreet
Singh Gurpreet 2014.01.30 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree for ejectment on the ground of non payment of rent.
Whether the premises are required for personal use and occupation by the landlord.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok Kumar
Pavnish Mitter Malhan
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
