Civil Revision No.5501 of 2008 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.5501 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03 .02.2009
Jawahar Singh .............. Petitioner
Vs.
Smt. Saroj Gosain .............Respondent
Present: Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate
for the respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
-.-
K.KANNAN, J.
1. The landlord’s application for ejectment of the tenant was ordered
on the ground of personal requirement both by the Rent Controller as well as
by the Appellate Authority. The tenant faced the order of eviction is the
revision petitioner before this Court.
2. While adverting to the need of the landlord, the Rent Controller
considered the fact that her husband was a heart patient and he was not able
to take up any difficult jobs and that the property was necessary for setting
up a small booth for business of her husband. It was the contention of the
landlord that her husband had a factory which was closed by the Pollution
Department and the commencement of business at the petition mentioned
premises was the only viable occupation. The Appellate Authority
confirmed the decision of the Rent Controller and it also referred to the
evidence of the husband-PW2 who has spoken about the need of the
premises for establishing his business. Adverting to provisions of law and
Civil Revision No.5501 of 2008 (O&M) -2-
the authorities, the Appellate Authority reasoned that it was not for the
tenant to state that they were old and they were not capable of doing any
profitable business. The bona fides of the requirement was also decided on
the contention of the tenant that the landlord was persistent in seeking for
enhancement of rents and the desire of the landlord was only to somehow
obtain eviction and lease out the property for higher rent. This was shown
as possible cause by pointing out that in the notice issued by the landlord
prior to the institution of the petition, the landlord had not set out
requirement of the premises for personal occupation and it was trotted out
for the first time only at the time of filing of the petition. The Appellate
Authority rejected the said contention also by stating that there was no
statutory requirement for issuance of notice spelling out the requirement of
the landlord prior to filing of the petition.
3. The bona fides of the requirements to the landlord is essentially a
matter of inference from the material facts placed. Although there is weight
in the argument that the absence of reference to the personal requirement in
the lawyer’s notice is a relevant consideration, it cannot be decisive if there
are other materials to show that there was a need for the landlord for his or
her own occupation. The need was spelt out by the examination of both the
husband and wife. Both the authorities below have considered the issue of
requirement from the nature of evidence adduced on the side of the landlord.
There is no material irregularity or impropriety in the orders to make any
intervention in revision. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Time for
eviction two months.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
February 03, 2009
Pankaj*