Civil Revision No. 5538 of 2008 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Civil Revision No. 5538 of 2008
Date of Decision: 16.10.2008
Raju and Others
...Petitioners
Versus
Chowdhary Ram
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. H.S.Dhillon, Advocate
for the Petitioners.
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
for the Caveator-Respondent.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
Chowdhary Ram, aged 92 years, had filed an ejectment
petition to evict the petitioners-tenants from the shop situated at Sutehri
Road, within the municipal limits of Hoshiarpur. The shop was rented out
to one Prem Singh at the rate of Rs.420/- per month. Prem Singh died
in the month of October 2001. The petitioners-tenants are the legal heirs
of Prem Singh. Chowdhary Ram had two sons, namely Sudarshan
Kumar and Ashok Kumar. The family of both his sons is residing in the
house of Chowdhary Ram. It has been stated that Ashok Kumar had
started various businesses to earn his livelihood and ultimately he
started running a business of Guest House at Dharamshala
Civil Revision No. 5538 of 2008 2
(McLeodganj) Himachal Pradesh in partnership with some other person.
It has come in evidence that two children of Ashok Kumar along with his
wife are residing with the landlord-respondent and he is looking after
them and paying their school fee. In the ejectment -petition, a ground
was taken that shop is required for running a Beauty Parlour by the wife
of Ashok Kumar.
Notice was issued and the written statement was filed by the
petitioners-respondents wherein they denied the averments made in the
ejectment petition and stated that the landlord demanded Rs.800/- as
rent of the shop w.e.f. 1.11.2001 but the petitioners only agreed to pay
Rs.500/- per month. This infuriated the landlord and he had filed the
ejectment petition. It has been further stated that the landlord has
various other shops and he cannot opt for this particular shop. Both the
Courts below found merit in the ejectment petition and ordered
ejectment of the petitioners.
Mr. Dhillon appearing for the petitioners (tenants) has stated
that it has come in evidence of landlord Chowdhary Ram that a shop
was lying vacant and yet the ejectment petition has been filed. This
submission was also made before learned Rent Controller. Learned
Rent Controller, after analyzing the evidence, found that the shop which
was vacated, the internal wall of that shop was removed and two shops
were joined into one shop by another son of landlord namely Sudarshan
Kumar.
Learned Rent Controller relied upon judgment rendered in
Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Bahal 2002 (2) Punjab Law Reporter
625 wherein the word “own use” has been defined to include not only
Civil Revision No. 5538 of 2008 3
dependents of the landlord but also the persons upon whom the landlord
is dependent.
Both the Courts below further found that the premises are
required for running a Beauty Parlour by wife of Ashok Kumar.
Aggrieved against the order passed by learned Rent Controller, an
appeal was filed. Learned Appellate Court below also placed reliance
upon Joginder Pal’s case (supra) and subsequent judgments to hold
that it is the need of the landlord which is to be appreciated and held that
the landlord has a bonafide requirement and thereby upheld the order
passed by learned Rent Controller.
Mr. Dhillon, during the course of arguments has further stated
that Mrs. Prem is a Post Graduate (M.A.) and she does not require the
premises for running the Beauty Parlour. He has further stated that the
family is join and, therefore, it cannot be said that the landlord is
dependent upon Mrs. Prem. This Court is conscious that while
exercising revisional jurisdiction it cannot substitute its own opinion with
the opinion of learned Appellate Court below. While exercising revisional
jurisdiction, this Court cannot act as second Appellate Court. The
findings returned by the two Courts below are neither perverse nor
perfunctory. The opinion formulated by the two Courts below is one
opinion which can be formulated from the facts and circumstances of the
case. It has been stated by Hon’ble the Apex Court that bonafide
requirement (for own use) is to be construed liberally and the demised
premises cant be got vacated by the landlord not only for his own
dependents but also for the persons on whom he is dependent.
Undisputedly, the landlord is 92 years old. It can be safely inferred that
Civil Revision No. 5538 of 2008 4
day-to-day needs of the landlord are being looked after by Mrs. Prem,
wife of his son Ashok Kumar. Therefore, I find no justification to
interfere in the findings returned by both the Courts below. Hence, this
Court has no option left but to dismiss the present revision petition.
At this stage, Mr. Dhillon has stated that the petitioners have
no other source of livelihood except the shop which is under their
tenancy and after the death of Prem Singh, his family may be provided
some solace to find some alternative place.
At this stage, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the
Caveator, has stated that no rent has been paid by the petitioners,
therefore, no time be granted to them to make alternative arrangement.
Taking into consideration that entire family of deceased Prem
Singh is dependent upon the business run by him, I am of the view that
sufficient time be provided to the tenants to make alternative
arrangement.
Mr. Dhillon has stated that entire arrears of the rent shall be
tendered within one month before learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur.
On furnishing an undertaking that the shops shall be vacated within the
period of nine months and the rent shall be paid on or before 7th of each
month and on tendering entire arrears of rent, the petitioners shall not be
evicted for nine months.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
October 16, 2008
“DK”