Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008
Date of Decision: 10.11.2008
Gian Chand
... Petitioner
Versus
Parveen Kumar
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
The petitioner is a landlord-Non Resident Indian who has
failed before learned Rent Controller to evict the tenant. The findings of
learned Rent Controller originated not only from the pleadings, and
accompanying circumstances but from the appreciation of evidence
also. Before the findings returned by learned Rent Controller are
considered, it will be apposite here to reproduce para 5 of the eviction
petition:-
“5. That the respondent is liable to ejectment
as the petitioner who is owner landlord and is a non-
resident Indian has since returned to India. The
petitioner was earlier in Jury services at London and
now since retired. The petitioner now wants to settle
Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 2in India at Jalandhar alongwith his wife which is the
birth place of the petitioner. Now in the old age the
Petitioner wants to remain at Jalandhar, at his
native place, close to his nears and dears and wants
to permanently settle at Jalandhar. The Petitioner
requires the demised premises alongwith other
rented shops for his personal use and occupation for
doing the business. The petitioner does not own or
possess any other non-residential building in the
urban area of Jalandhar. The shop in dispute
alongwith other portion of the premises i.e. property
no. 56-57 was rented out by the Petitioner as the
petitioner was going abroad and to keep the
property in good condition and now the petitioner
after retirement the Petitioner decided to come back.
The petitioner not only requires the premises in
dispute but other residential as well as non-
residential portions also which are with other
tenants”.
Mr. Jindal, during the course of arguments, has provided the
eviction petition and laid much emphasis as to how this part of pleadings
has been incorporated.
To controvert these averments made, a written statement was
filed in which it was stated that shop in question along with other
portions of property Nos. 56 and 57 have been rented out to many
tenants. It was stated that the petitioner had earlier filed, in his capacity
Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 3
as landlord qua the land owned by his wife, ejectment petition against
one tenant Jyoti Rana which consist of one shop at ground floor and
three rooms, bathroom, latrine etc. The petitioner succeeded in that
petition and the shop was vacated. Lateron, this shop was let out to
another tenant Manoj Aggarwal. Furthermore, it was stated that the
petitioner was in vacant possession of sufficient accommodation of
building Nos. 56 and 57 and besides this he is in possession of property
No. 58, Shiv Nagar, Sodal Road, Jalandhar and the petitioner has
concealed the fact regarding his possession and ownership of other
premises in the eviction petition. It was also stated that petitioner had
installed a board outside the building for the sale of it. It was stated that
there are photographs available with the tenant regarding the board
displayed for sale.
During the course of arguments, it was also submitted before
the Court below that the landlord had also rented out a shop in the
same building to Shakuntla Devi before filing of the eviction petition. It
was also stated that many ejectment petitions have been filed.
Four of such petitions are listed today together.
Learned Rent Controller noticed the arguments advanced by
the landlord that the premises are required for his personal use. He also
noticed that copy of passport Ex.A5 has been proved. Sale deed Ex.A1
and copy of the sale deed in favour of Swaran Kaur Ex.A2 along with
site plan Ex.A3 were also noticed by learned Rent Controller. Relying
upon the ratio of law that Non Resident Indian landlord has a bonafide
requirement, the argument pressed before learned Rent Controller was
that the petitioner after his retirement require the premises for his own
Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 4
use and occupation. Before learned Rent Controller, on behalf of the
tenant, it was urged that there is a greed to get the property vacated.
The conduct of the tenant and the averments made by him are such
which disentitle him from getting the premises vacated. He has failed to
prove his bonafide necessity. Learned Rent Controller observed as
under:-
“11. I have gone through the file and have
heard the learned counsel for the parties. I find that
the need of the petitioner is not bonafide. The
petitioner has filed three other petitions against
different tenants. All these tenants are tenants in the
same building. It is crystal clear from the previous
litigation that the petitioner got a shop vacated from
one Jyoti Rana. He let it out vide a rent deed to one
Manoj Aggarwal, the fact which is clear from the
photocopy of the register of deed writer. Now here
we are deciding the question of bonafide
requirement which I find is not based on the
documents alone. The conduct of the parties is very
relevant. The petitioner has not come to the Court
with clean hands. He has concealed the material
facts from the Court. He has denied the fact that he
has rented out the property to one Manoj Aggarwal
but this photocopy of the extract of the register is
clear evidence that the petitioner has rented out the
portion which he got vacated under Section 13-B of
Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 5the Act to one Manoj Aggarwal. Now the bonafide
requirement is that he wants to settle down in India.
But he has not shown that how the property in
dispute is required by him. The property in dispute
is a commercial property. He has not proved that
what type of business he wants to start. It is clear cut
law that the petitioner can use this right only once in
a life. Now filing four different applications against
different tenants for the vacation of the commercial
property goes to show that his intention is only to get
the property vacated and then rent it out to different
tenants. This desire of the petitioner is clear from his
conduct. The case would ;have been otherwise if he
has proved that he wants to start a particular
business which he has to run in different shops
which are under the occupation of different tenants.
Now as per the judgment Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr.
Mahesh Chand Gupta 1999(2) RCR 141 (discussed
supra), it has been beautifully rules that requirement
is not a mere desire. Degree of intensity
contemplated by requirement is much higher than in
mere desire. The Judge of facts should place
himself in the arm chair of landlord and then ask
question to himself whether in the given facts, the
need to occupy the premises can be said to be
natural, real and honest. Similarly, in Baldev Singh
Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 6Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini 2006 AIR (SC) 59; 2005(2)
RCR (Rent) 470; 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 492
(discussed supra), it has been held that if the
landlord fails to prove that requirement is not
bonafide and is a pretext to get the accommodation
vacated, then he is not entitled to the ejectment.
The landlord has to prove that for which purpose he
wants to get the property vacated from the tenants.
Now going through the pleadings and evidence, it is
clear that the intention shown is that he wants to
settle down in India along with his wife with his nears
and dears. The property in the petition is a
commercial property. It is clear that Petitioner is
having sufficient accommodation with him which is
residential one and how the commercial property is
required by him, is a mystery. Accordingly, this issue
is decided against the petitioner and in favour of the
respondent”.
I have heard Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, appearing for the
petitioner. He has drawn my attention to the site plan attached with the
petition as Annexure P1. Perusal of the site plan will show that the
property is 75′ x 75′ consist of many shops and has been rented out to
various persons.
Mr. Jindal also drawn my attention to Annexure P4, statement
of one tenant Parveen Kumar. He has drawn my attention to his cross-
examination wherein he has admitted that it is correct that the board
Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 7
does not contain any contact number and name of seller. He has
further stated that statement of Manoj Aggarwal was put to the tenant
and tenant agreed that the shop was tenanted to Manoj Aggarwal with
an understanding that he will vacate the same as and when possession
from another tenant is taken. To buttress this argument, Mr. Jindal has
further stated that shop was rented out to Manoj Aggarwal out of
necessity as electricity meter was there and he was to look after it and
there was no other option except to rent out the shop to Manoj
Aggarwal. It has been further stated that the premises is divided into two
parts and the other portion in which the shops have been situated had
been purchased by the petitioner as owner and the other part where the
shop was rented out to Manoj Aggarwal was purchased by his wife
Swaran Kaur. It was further stated that the petitioner does not own any
other building.
A perusal of eviction petition filed will show that the petitioner
not only requires the premises in dispute but other residential and non-
residential premises which are with other tenants. Learned Rent
Controller has held the property to be commercial and has concluded
that the landlord had not specified as to what business he has to start in
the evening of his life when after his retirement he would come to
Jalandhar. Coupled with this, learned Rent Controller has taken into
consideration the conduct of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the
property which has been purchased by Swaran Kaur, petitioner is
landlord.
A specific averment made in eviction petition is that landlord
does not own or possess any other non-residential building.
Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 8
Earlier, ejectment petition against Jyoti Rana was also filed by
the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said
petition was withdrawn. If this argument is accepted, it in no way
materially affects the findings arrived by learned Rent Controller which
are just.
The findings of learned Rent Controller are not such which can
be said to be perverse. This can be one view which can be reasonably
drawn and from appreciation of the evidence, the vie w taken by learned
Rent Controller cannot be said to be perfunctory.
While exercising my revisional jurisdiction, no interference is
warranted. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same
is dismissed.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
November 10, 2008
“DK”