CR No. 6761 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 6761 of 2008
Decided on : 05-12-2008
Bhupinder Kumar
....Petitioner.
VERSUS
Champa Devi
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
MAHESH GROVER, J
This revision petition is directed against the orders of the Rent
Controller dated 18.4.2007 and Appellate Authority dated 24.11.2008.
An ejectment petition was preferred by the respondent-landlady
against the petitioner on the following grounds:-
i) non-payment of rent from 1st January, 99 to 31st August, 2000.
ii) That there is nuisance being created by the petitioner.
iii)Shop is required for the personal use and occupation of the respondent-
landlady.
The Rent Controller framed the following issues:-
1) Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the grounds:-
a) that the tender made by the respondent is short for want of payment of
house tax?
b) That the petitioner, who is a widow requires the shop in dispute for her
bona fide and personal necessity?
CR No. 6761 of 2008 2
c) that the respondent is permanent nuisance for the petitioner.
2) Whether the present petition of the petitioner is not maintainable in its
present form?
3) Relief.
Since the rent and house tax etc. had been paid, so issue no.1
did not survive. The ground of nuisance was also not accepted by the
Courts below, as a result of which the only surviving ground was the ground
of bona fide requirement which was accepted and answered in her favour.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the findings
of the Courts below has contended that the bona fide need of the
respondent-landlady is not established as she is running a business from her
residential premises and has two sons out of whom, one is employed with
FCI, Delhi and the other one has been residing with his Aunt for the last 16
years.
No other point has been raised before this Court.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing
the impugned orders, I am of the considered opinion that the contention
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. Whether the
need of the landlady is genuine or not has to be seen from the point of view
of the landlady. The tenant cannot dictate to the landlady that the need is
existing or not, even if the eviction causes hardship to the petitioner. The
Apex Court in case titled as ‘Sarla Ahuja versus United India Insurance
Company Ltd.’ 1998 (2) RCR 534 observed as follows:-
“Para 14. The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e)
of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for
occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a
CR No. 6761 of 2008 3landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation
the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the
requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are
satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to
the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the
landlord is bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the
tenant to dictate terms of the landlord as to how else he can adjust
himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While
deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord
it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the
landlord could have adjusted himself.”
The facts of the case reveal that the respondent requires the said
premises for the use of her two sons particularly for running a small
business of selling ‘pans’ and cigarettes. No infirmity has been shown to
have been committed in the impugned orders and consequently, the revision
petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the petitioner is in occupation of the shop since 1997 and great prejudice
has been caused to him as he has three children who are college going and
are in the process of availing education of higher standards. Further pleads
that the petitioner is present in Court and is ready and willing to furnish an
undertaking that if some time is granted to him, he shall hand over vacant
physical possession of the demised premises to the respondent.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner on this aspect
of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the prayer of the petitioner
deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted one year’s time
CR No. 6761 of 2008 4
beginning from today onwards, subject to the condition that he will furnish
an undertaking before the Executing Court within one week from today to
the effect that he will hand over the physical, vacant possession of the
demised premises to the respondent on or before 31.12.2009. He shall also
clear the arrears of rent, if any, alongwith an undertaking and shall also
continue to pay rent regularly by the 7th of each month for the period as
specified in the order lasts. Any violation of the terms of the undertaking
shall result in the automatic vacation of the benefit of this order.
Copy of the order be given dasti.
December 5, 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge