Kamlesh Rani Vs Parma Nand and Anr.

By way of present petition challe n ge has been laid to the judg m ent dated 30.03.20 1 5 passed by the Appellate Aut h ority, whereby the decision d a ted 11.05.2012 ren d ered by the learned Rent Con t roller, Hoshiarpur stands reve r sed thereby resulti n g into dismissal of the evicti o n petition filed at the instanc e of petitioner-landl a dy. 2. Briefly stating, the petitioner-lan d lady while claiming herself to be owner of shop forming part of three storied b uilding (hereinafter referred t o as ‘demised shop’ ) situated on the Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur; based on regist e red sale deeds date d 27.04.1991 and 20.11.1991 so u ght eviction of respondents on the ground of arrea r s of rent; property being unfit and unsafe of human habitatio n as well as on the g round of same being required for bona fide necessity of her son namely Sunny K apoor. As per pleadings the te n ancy started in July, 1988 @ r ent of Rs.825/- per m onth.

¶15

MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.26 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶16

2

¶17

CR No.3119 of 2015 (O&M)

¶18

Up o n notice, respondents appeared and filed written statement ther e by controverting t h e pleadings set up by the petiti o ner-landlady while submitting t hat one of the shop in the building was in occupat i on of petitioner herself and it w as submitted that d emised premises was fit for hu m an habitation. Further with res p ect to bona fide need of son of the petitioner-landla d y, it was pleaded that he gradu a ted in the year 200 6 and passed DJ course from t h e ‘ Spin Guru ’ of Greater Kail a sh, New Delhi wa s employed; well settled and a s such the demised shop was not required by hi m and as such the need expresse d by the petitioner-landlady qua the shop in questio n was not bona fide . With respect to arrears of rent, the same w ere tendered before the learned Rent Controller.

¶19

Ba s ed on the pleadings and evide n ce led by the parties, the lear n ed Rent Controlle r vide its decision dated 11.05.2012 ordered eviction of the respondents on the ground of building in q u estion being unfit and unsafe for human habitati o n besides the demised shop bei n g required by the son of petitio n erlandlady for his personal use.

¶20

Ag g rieved thereof, respondent N o.1 filed first appeal before the Appellate Auth o rity which came to be allowed vide order dated 30.03.2015 w h ile holding that th e building in question was fit f or human habitation, however the bona fide need q ua son of petitioner was not est a blished on record. That is how, the present petition was filed at the hands of petitio n er-landlady.

¶21

It m ay be pointed out here that the respondents having tend e red arrears of rent before the learned Rent Controll e r; the said issue was never agit a ted by the petitione r -landlady during the first appea l filed by the respondents-tenant s 7. Le a rned counsel for the petitioner s ubmits that merely because the son of petitioner h a ving graduated besides done D J course from the ‘ Spin Guru ’ of

¶22

MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.26 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶23

3

¶24

CR No.3119 of 2015 (O&M)

¶25

Greater Kailas h , New Delhi was employed in and around Chandigarh, the s a me could not creat e shadow over the cause set up i n the eviction petition qua his need of the demised s hop. It was further submitted t h at by any stretch of imaginatio n , it could not be p r esumed that during pendency o f the eviction petition or even the appeal/revision petition, son of the petitioner was required to keep waiting for starting his car e er and was, thus not supposed to start any job/occupation/voca t ion for himself. L e arned counsel also submits t h at the bona fide need of so n of petitioner-landl a dy was to be taken into co n sideration from the prospects of petitioner-landl a dy and her family only. 7.1. Le a rned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Appel l ate Authority also w ent wrong while recording th a t there was no plea set up by the petitioner-landl a dy in her pleadings that the t enanted shop/demised buildin g in question was re q uired to be demolished and re-constructed and as such the ple a of bona fide need as set up in the pleadings w a s in contradiction to her ano t her plea/ground wi t h respect to the demised sho p . In this regard, learned cou n sel submits that o n ce it was specifically pleade d in the eviction petition that the building in whi c h the tenanted shop was situate d had outlived its life and, there f ore as a normal c o nsequence it was needed to b e re-constructed once it was got vacated by the respondents-tenants. It has a l so been submitted that even the findings record e d by the Appellate Authority to the effect that building in ques t ion was not unfit a nd unsafe for human habitatio n was also wrong in the wak e of evidence availa b le on record. 7.2. Le a rned counsel for the petitione r further submits that in term s of evidence led b y the petitioner in the shape of B uilding Expert-AW1, who pro v ed his report as Ex.A-1, the Appellate Authorit y misread and mis-appreciated the

¶26

MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.26 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶27

4

¶28

CR No.3119 of 2015 (O&M)

¶29

evidence availa b le on record as such the judg m ent passed by it may kindly be set aside by uphold i ng the judgment passed by the l earned Rent Controller. 8. On the other hand, learned couns e l for respondent No.1 submits t hat the reasoning recorded by the Appellate A uthority was based on pr o per appreciation of e vidence and the pleadings available on record. He further sub m its that since 2006 - 2008, no effort was ever made by the petitioner-landlady to s e ttle her son at Hosh i arpur and throughout these yea r s, he was doing jobs in and aro u nd Chandigarh an d , thus it was apparent that th e need/necessity expressed by the petitioner-landl a dy was mere her wish. It has also been submitted that judi c ial notice could be taken to the fact that it was al w ays better to set up a DJ busi n ess around the capi t al city of Chandigarh rather tha n putting it in Hoshiarpur. No o t her argument was r a ised on behalf of respondent N o .1. 9. I h ave heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book.

¶30

In the present case, though the e v iction petition was sought at the instance of pet i tioner-landlady on the ground of respondents being in arrear s of rent; the buildi n g in question having become u n fit and unsafe for human habita t ion and the demise d shop been required for perso n al bona fide need of her son. T he learned Rent C o ntroller, Hoshiarpur ordered e v iction against the respondents on the ground of b uilding in question having become unfit and unsafe for hu m an habitation and a lso for the reason that the petit i oner-landlady established the need of demised sh o p for setting up of business/vocation of her son. The Appe l late Authority, Hos h iapur, though reversed the reas o nings recorded by the learned R ent Controller whil e holding that the building in q uestion was though fit for hu m an

¶31

MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.26 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶32

5

¶33

CR No.3119 of 2015 (O&M) habitation, how e ver, the petitioner-landlady fai l ed to prove her case qua the b o na fide need of her son, namely, Sunny Kapoor. 11. Ha v ing gone through the pleadi n gs and the evidence available on record, the fin d ings recorded by the Appella t e Authority to the effect that the building in que s tion was fit for human habitati o n need no interference as the s a me are based on ap p reciation of reports submitted b y an Architect-Sh. Rahul Dev S y al, who appeared as a witness on behalf of respondents-tenant as RW-2 bes i des relying upon th e photographs of the building in q uestion/demised premises.

¶34

Le a rned counsel for the petition e r has not been able to point a ny substantial evid e nce to controvert the findings r e corded by the Appellate Autho r ity on the aforesaid issue and, thus the same are, th e refore affirmed. 12. In such circumstances, as regar d s the findings recorded by the Appellate Auth o rity on the point of demised s hop being required by the so n of petitioner-landl a dy, the same need to be reversed for the reason that merely the son of petitioner gr a duated in the year 2006 and the r eafter passed out a DJ course f r om the institute kn o wn as ‘ Spin Guru ’ of Greater K ailash, New Delhi in the year 2 0 07 and thereafter, g ot employed in and around C h andigarh as the petitioner-landl a dy always intende d to adjust her son in the Hosh i arpur City only where his par e nts have been resid i ng since long. The fact that th e son of petitioner was carrying out some job during the currency of the eviction petition/appeal/revision cannot be taken/considere d against him while dealing wit h the plea of his bona fide neces s ity qua the demise d shop in question as during all these years, the son of petiti o ner having attained graduation and possessed with a diploma in DJ was not supp o sed to keep himself idle for long and was, thus alw a ys free to join any vocation / jo b so as to earn his li v elihood and, thus it cannot be c onsidered against him. Moreo v er,

¶35

MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.26 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶36

6

¶37

CR No.3119 of 2015 (O&M)

¶38

the prospects o f demised shop required for t h e personal need of the so n of petitioner-landl a dy has to be seen and conside r ed from the prospects of landl a dy and her family o nly and not from the eye of res p ondents-tenants.

¶39

In s uch circumstances, finding th a t the bona fide need of the so n of petitioner-landl a dy was genuine and establis h ed on record from the conj o int reading of plea d ings as well as the depositio n of the landlady who appeare d as AW-2 as well a s from the statement of her son - Sunny Kapoor having appeare d as AW-3, the reas o ning recorded by the Appellat e Authority qua the bona fide need are hereby reve r sed and recorded in favour of t h e petitioner-landlady. 14. As an effect of the aforesaid fin d ing, the judgment passed by the Appellate Auth o rity is reversed/modified acco r dingly and an order of evictio n is passed against t h e respondents–tenants qua the d emised shop. 15. Di s posed off accordingly. Pending application(s), if any shall a lso stand disposed o f.

¶40

May 20, 2025	(HA RKESH MANUJA) JUDGE
Atik
Wh ether speaking/reasoned	Yes /No
Wh ether reportable	Yes /No

¶41

MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.26 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Kamlesh Rani v. Parma Nand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Rani v. Parma Nand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohinder Singh Vs Ashok Khemka and Ors.

Virender Singh Vs Rahul Hooda, IAS

Ajit Singh Sandhu Vs Deepak Parek Ssp, Mohali

Ranjit Singh Boparai Vs Satish Kumar Saini

Ranjit Singh Boparai Vs Satish Kumar Saini

Jaidev and Others Vs Chander Shekhar Khare, IAS and Others