Civil Revision No.6534of 2008 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6534 of 2008 (O & M)
Date of decision 06.01.2009
State of Haryana and others .....Appellants
versus
Sh. M. S. Nagra and others .....Respondents
Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan.
Present: Mr. Deepak Jindal, AAG, Haryana.
K. Kannan, J.
1. The tenant which is the State of Haryana assails the concurrent
orders of eviction passed on the ground of the requirement of the landlord
for own use and occupation. The landlord’s contention was that the
property was required for setting up an office of law firm in the premises.
The Rent Controller upheld the contention of the landlord and ordered
eviction on 2.4.2008. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on
26.9.2008 affirming the decision of the Rent Controller.
2. The contention on behalf of the Government was that the
landlord had no bona fide requirement and that would be seen from the fact
that even after filing of the petition, the property at the second floor and
third floor had fallen vacant and instead of occupying the property the
petitioner had been pursuing the application for eviction of the tenant.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends further that the rent
agreement provided for 3 months notice for termination and such notice had
not been issued.
3. In order to succeed in the petition, the only requirement under
Civil Revision No.6534of 2008 (O & M) -2-
the relevant statute under Section 13(3)(i) is:
a) he requires it for own use;
b) he is not occupying another residential building in the urban
area concerned;
c) he has not vacated such building without sufficient cause
after the commencement of the Act in the said urban area;
d)……….proviso…………….
4. As regards the first contention that the landlord had obtained
vacant possession of the building at second, third and the fourth floor, it
cannot be a ground to test bonafides of the requirement of the landlord.
That would amount to enabling the tenant to dictate to the landlord which
property he shall occupy. It bears out in evidence that has also been
rendered in the appellate Court’s order that the landlord was willing to
accommodate the tenant in possession of any other floor which had fallen
vacant subsequently but the tenant was not prepared to take any other
portion of the building. If a tenant must have a specific preference to the
ground floor, afortiorari, the landlord shall also be entitled to insist a
particular portion of the building as alone being required for personal
occupation. The landlord may have his own reasons for the choice of the
particular floor of the building, considering the fact that it is an evidence
that they were planning to set up a law firm consisting of brothers and they
may believe that access to the clients would be easy only if it is at the
ground floor. The appellate Court has referred to several decisions of the
Supreme Court where it has been pointed out that a tenant cannot plead that
a landlord shall opt for only a particular portion of the building and insist on
not vacating the premises, so long as it is not shown that at the time of the
presentation of the petition the landlord had any other property in
occupation. A landlord cannot be non-suited, except when a subsequent
Civil Revision No.6534of 2008 (O & M) -3-
event some other building had fallen vacant which was equally suitable that
violated the statutory requirement as outlined above.
5. The counsel for the revision petitioner also contended that a
family partition that has been brought about by the landlord makes it appear
as though the different floors of the building had been allotted to other
brothers and that the landlord had only been allotted the ground floor. This,
according to him, shows the landlord’s deliberate conduct to hoodwink the
Court to accept his contention for the other hand, in my view, it is indeed
non-issue, even if it had been contended that the family arrangement set up
by the landlord referring to the allotment of the different portions of the
building to other brothers were not true, the petitioner as landlord is entitled
to secure eviction, so long as the requirement for establishing the law firm
continued and that need is found to be not false.
6. It is also strenuously contended by the landlord that the three
months notice had not been issued as was required to be done under the
rental agreement. It has to be pointed out that the agreement that was
executed on 31.1.1995 provided initially for a period of 5 years and the
notice period must be understood as being operative only in existence where
termination was sought even within the period of 5 years. Admittedly the 5
years period had expired. The tenant has continued as a statutory tenant.
The provisions of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 shall be
understood as overriding any other contractual obligation and eviction itself
could be sought only on the grounds mentioned under Section 13. So
considered, there is no necessity for issuance of notice under any of the
provisions of the Rent Control Act.
7. The orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate Court are
Civil Revision No.6534of 2008 (O & M) -4-
well considered and there is no error as regards legality or propriety of the
order to justify intervention in revision proceedings. The revision petition
therefore fails and is dismissed.
8. The counsel for the petitioner states that the Government has
established Employment Exchange at the demised premises and seeks for at
least six months time for eviction. The plea is partially accepted and the
tenant shall have five months from the date of the order for eviction. No
costs.
( K. KANNAN )
JUDGE
06.01.2009
A. KAUNDAL