Civil Revision No. 6962 of 2008 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Civil Revision No. 6962 of 2008
Date of Decision: 17.12.2008
Gopal Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Rajinder Pal (dead) through his legal representatives
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Deepak Thapar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
In the present case, eviction petition was preferred by Rajinder
Pal, who died during the pendency of proceedings and is now
represented by his legal representatives, namely Kaushal Kishore Attri,
Neena and Parmod. The eviction petition was filed stating therein that
Satpal Singh, father of Gopal Singh, Nain Pal Singh and Arjan Singh was
tenant. He had died, therefore, respondents No.1 to 3 to the eviction
petition had inherited the tenancy. It is sated that the shop described
and detailed in the eviction petition was rented out on rent at the rate of
Rs.100/- per month excluding water and electricity charges. The rent has
been paid in the Court.
Civil Revision No. 6962 of 2008 2
In the ejectment petition, grounds of non-payment of rent, and
change of two girders on the ground floor, without the written or oral
consent of the landlord, amounted to changing the utility of the premises,
were taken. It was further stated that roof has been changed. Third
ground taken was that the premises are required for personal necessity
and lastly the ground which has been found with the two Courts below
is that the premises were lying closed since 1997 and the tenant has
ceased to occupy the premises four months before the filing of the
eviction petition.
A written statement was filed in which it was stated that their
father Satpal Singh was the tenant. He had executed a will on 8.2.1996
in their favour, therefore, they have inherited the tenancy. The rate of
rent was admitted. Rest of the grounds were denied.
Replication was filed in which the averments made in the
eviction petition were reiterated and that of the written statement were
denied.
The Court of learned Rent Controller had drawn the following
issues:-
1. Whether the tender made is short and
invalid? OPA
2. Whether the respondents had changed the
value and utility of demised premises?
OPA
3. Whether the petitioner require the premises
for his own personal necessity? OPA
3A. Whether the shop in dispute is lying
Civil Revision No. 6962 of 2008 3closed/locked or not? OPA
4. Relief.
Since the landlord has died, his son K.K.Attri appeared as
PW.1, and examined Bhagwant Singh as PW2, Prem Singh as PW.3
and Upkardeep Kaur as PW.4.
Tenant himself had not appeared but examined two witnesses
namely Vinod Kumar as RW.1 and Jaswant Singh as RW.2.
Ground of non payment of rent was not pressed, therefore, no
finding has been given by the Courts below.
Regarding change of user and the two girders, landlord was
not believed. It was held that landlord has not discharged the necessary
onus to prove this issue.
The eviction petition was filed by Rajinder Pal on the ground of
personal necessity. Since he has died during the pendency of petition, a
plea was raised by his son K.K.Attri that he required the shop for his
personal necessity. The Court of learned Rent Controller upheld the
personal necessity of K.K.Attri. The Court also believed that the tenant
has ceased to occupy the premises. It took into consideration the
statement of DW.2 Jaswant Singh and in his cross-examination, he has
stated that Gopal Singh, petitioner to the present revision petition, had
left India about five years ago and had gone abroad. He further stated
that the family of Gopal Singh had also gone to Canada. He further
stated that he had gone abroad and came back to India about two years
ago and he came to India only for ten days. It further noticed the fact that
other two brothers of Gopal Singh are settled abroad. The three sons of
Satpal Singh, who had inherited the tenancy, are admittedly well settled
Civil Revision No. 6962 of 2008 4
abroad. A plea was raised that the demised shop was opened
sometimes by their servant or nephew. This averment was not relied
upon by learned Rent Controller.
Learned Appellate Authority concurred with this finding that
the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises, therefore, the ground of
personal necessity was reversed.
Mr. Deepak Thapar, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner,
stated that the testimony of DW.1 Vinod Kumar and DW.2 Jaswant
Singh should have been believed in totality and a grave error has been
committed by learned Rent Controller to dissect their statements and to
hold that they are partly reliable and partly unreliable. This argument
cannot be accepted. Landlord has categorically stated that the tenant
has ceased to occupy the demised premises.
All the three sons of Satpal Singh who had inherited the
tenancy are well settled abroad. They have migrated along with their
families, therefore, this part of the testimony of tenants’ evidence
corroborated the version projected by the landlord. Where the blemish
has occurred that nephew or servant used to open the shop sometimes
has been rightly ignored.
Therefore, there is no infirmity in the concurrent finding of fact
arrived by the two Courts below. The view formulated by the two Courts
below is the one view which is possible. Therefore, no interference is
warranted while exercising the revisional jurisdiction by this Court. There
is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed.
At this stage, Mr. Thapar has stated that two months time be
granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises. In case petitioner furnish
Civil Revision No. 6962 of 2008 5
an undertaking before learned Rent Controller that peaceful vacant
possession of the demised premises shall be handed over to the
landlord, period of two months shall be granted.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
December 17, 2008
“DK”