JUDGMENT
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.
1. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises seeking his eviction on the ground that the tenant had neither paid nor tendered rent w.e.f. May, 1990, that the tenant had made alterations in the demised premises and that the landlord requires the premises for personal use and occupation. The tenant upon notice disputed the claim of the landlord.
2. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the tender made is legal and valid? OPR
2. Whether the respondent has caused material alteration in the disputed property? OPP
3. Whether the disputed property is required to the petitioner for his personal use? OPP
4. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected? OPA
5. Relief.
3. The Rent Controller after deciding all these issue in favour of the petitioner-tenant dismissed the ejectment petition by order dated 21.4.2003. However, the appeal carried by the respondent-landlord met with success and consequently the appellate authority by order dated 26.3.2004, while reversing the findings of the Rent Controller on issues No. 3 and 4 ordered eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute observing that the landlord required the demised premises for personal use.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the landlord in para 3(iii) of the ejectment petition has only pleaded that he required the disputed shop for his personal use and occupation and that he has two sons and his elder son is about to complete his education who wanted to join the business which he is running in the yellow portion of the property. It has also been pleaded that the landlord is running his workshop in the yellow portion of this property which is most insufficient for running the workshop and the landlord wants to expand his business which can only be possible if the disputed shop is vacated. According to the counsel, the landlord has examined Gurbax Singh as AW1 and himself appeared as AW2 to prove the above averments. He submitted that Gurbax Singh AW1 during his cross-examination admitted that abutting the suit property, there is one wide lane and the landlord is having his opening of workshop in that lane. The landlord used the gate for entry of vehicles of washing and used to bring out the vehicles from that gate only. The witness had further stated in his cross-examination that the wall shown towards the street of service station has full gate and that hydraulic lift to lift the vehicles was installed at point A’ in plan Ex.A1. The landlord while appearing as AW2 had stated in his evidence that he had filed ejectment petition against both his tenants and if both the shops are vacated, one out of the two can be used for spare parts and accessories and he had also admitted during his cross examination that he is running his service station as well as repair shop in portion mark A-1 and A-2 shown in the site plan Ex.R-1 right from the very beginning. On the above premises, the counsel submitted that the landlord had filed the petition for ejectment as he wanted to expand his business of service station and while appearing as AW2, he had stated that if these shops are vacated one out of the two can be used for spare parts and accessories. This according to the learned Counsel is beyond the pleadings and, thus, no evidence could have been adverted or look into in this respect.
5. He then submitted that the appellate authority has misread the evidence and has erroneously held that the shop in question is required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation. He next contended that the revisional court can look into the subsequent events as well which have happened during the pendency of the proceedings and in the present case, the landlord has already got vacated the shop shown in the green portion which was in occupation of other tenant. Sohan Lal and now therefore, the landlord has no bona fide personal necessity as the shop in question is not required by him for personal use. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Kedar Nath Agarwal (Dead) and Anr. v. Dhanraji Devi (Dead) by LRs and Anr. .
6. Refuting the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellate authority after appreciating the evidence has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the landlord has successfully proved his bonafide requirement which should not be re-appreciated or reversed in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. He further submitted that there has been no misreading of evidence and in fact the landlord is running a workshop where the washing of the cars is being done and that the landlord wanted to expand his business as he cannot carry out the repair of cars in the street and moreover, he is best judge of his needs and the tenant cannot dictate to him as to how he should use the premises. He further submitted that the business of spare parts and accessories is ancillary to the working of repair of cars and in any manner cannot be said to be different as has been attempted by the tenant. The landlord has already pleaded in the petition that the premises are required by him for his sons to enable him to expand his business. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, the evidence has been led in consonance with the pleadings. He placed reliance on the judgments reported in Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery and Co. 2000(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 135 (S.C.), Pawan Kumar v. Smt. Pushpa Rani and Ors. 2004(1) R.C.R. 368 (P&H) and Balwant Singh Chaudhary and Anr. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. (2004-2) 137 P.L.R. 198 to buttress his arguments.
7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record of the courts below.
8. 1 find considerable force in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondent. The landlord has filed the ejectment petition alogwith which he attached site plan Ex.A1. The property shown in yellow colour therein is being used by the landlord for service station and repair of cars. The portion shown in red is in the demised shop and in green was under the tenancy with Shri Sohan Lai of M/s Ram Lai and Company. These two shops are contiguous to the workshop of the landlord. The landlord had filed two ejectment petitions i.e. one against Shri Sohan Lal and the present petition against petitioner Dewan Chand Puri for eviction from green and red portions respectively. The landlord filed both the petitions on 29.10.1996 and had sought their eviction on the ground that he required the premises for expansion of his business. The eviction of Sohan Lai was ordered by the Rent Controller on 18.3.2002 which was affirmed in appeal on 10.1.2003 and civil revision No. 919 of 2003 was dismissed by this Court. The site plan Ex.A1 clearly shows that the service station and the demised shop are contiguous to each other and as per the averments of the landlord he wanted the demised shop for expansion of his business. It is worth noticing that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and the tenant cannot dictate terms on which the landlord should carry out his business or utilize his property. Moreover, the business of spare parts and accessories cannot be said to be something entirely different from running workshop for repairing of cars and in fact is an ancillary to it. The landlord has thus led evidence in consonance with the pleadings and the contention of the petitioner that the landlord has led evidence beyond the pleadings is thus rejected.
9. The appellate authority after appreciating the evidence on record had arrived at a conclusion that the premises are bonafide required by the landlord. No illegality or infirmity could be found in the said finding recorded by the appellate authority which is based on appreciation of evidence. The attempt of the counsel for the petitioner that this Court should re-appreciate the evidence and draw different conclusions on that basis is without any force as the same is not within the domain of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
10. The proposition of law as enunciated in the case of Kedar Nath Agrawal’s case (supra), by Apex Court is well recognised. However, it does not advance the case of the petitioner in any manner. The eviction of Sohan Lal during the pendency of present proceedings shall be of no help to the petitioner for obstructing his eviction from the demised shop. As noticed earlier, both the premises i.e. the demised premises and the one which was earlier with tenant Sohan Lal are contiguous to each other along with the workshop of the respondent-landlord and are required by him for expansion of his business. Moreover, the eviction of Sohan Lal has already been upheld by this Court in civil revision No. 919 of 2003. The landlord being the best judge of his needs cannot be said to have filed the present petition with some ulterior motive to seek ejectment of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner, is thus rejected. In view of the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this revision petition and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.