Civil Revision No. 4165 of 2007 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Civil Revision No. 4165 of 2007
Date of Decision: 12.11.2008
Vijay Manohar and Another
...Petitioners
Versus
Jagdev Singh
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Ajit Attri, Advocate
for the respondent.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
Darshan Singh had filed petition under Section 13 of the East
Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, seeking eviction of Vijay
Manohar and Rajinder Mohan, both sons of Lachhman Dass.
Eviction petition was filed on two grounds that the shop in
question is required by the landlord for personal necessity and the same
has been sublet by Vijay Manohar to Rajinder Mohan, his brother. Both
the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the shop
is required for personal necessity and there is subletting.
It is not disputed that in pursuance of order of the two Courts
below i.e. learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority, in
Civil Revision No. 4165 of 2007 2
execution proceedings, the landlord had obtained possession of the
premises. The case of the landlord was that Vijay Manohar was
inducted as tenant on rent at the rate of Rs.125/- per month on
30.8.1970. It was further stated that petitioner No.1 had sublet the shop
to petitioner No.2 without obtaining written consent of the landlord.
Landlord examined Jasbir Singh, Clerk from the office of
Labour Inspector Shops, as AW1, Rajesh Verma as AW2, Gurcharan
Singh as AW3, Balbir Singh as AW4, Gurpreet Singh as AW5, Jagdev
Singh, son of the landlord as AW6.
Tenant-petitioner also examined Maninder Kumar as RW1,
Dheeraj Kumar as RW2, petitioner Vijay Manohar had himself appeared
as RW3 and also examined Jagdish Verma, Tax Assistant as RW4.
Jagdev Singh AW6 stated that the shop was required for his
personal necessity. He further stated that Vijay Manohar had left the
shop in question and thereafter he started running his business in the
said shop under the name & style of M/s Herry Electricals, 30 Industrial
Estate, Patiala.
An argument was raised before learned Rent Controller that
from the income tax returns, it is evident that a very meager income has
been shown from the demised shop as Vijay Manohar is not doing
business of manufacturing generators at Industrial Area, Sirhind Road,
Patiala. Further argument raised that the landlord has been receiving
rent even after coming to know the fact of subletting, was not accepted.
The Court took into consideration that the landlord is running shop in
another rented premises, therefore, the premises are required for him for
his bonafide personal necessity and for his family which included his son
Civil Revision No. 4165 of 2007 3
also. These findings have been affirmed by learned lower Appellate
Court.
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, appearing for the tenant has
stated that it is a case of very old tenancy, therefore, it will cause great
hardship to the tenant in case he is evicted. He has further stated that
son of landlord has another premises, therefore, he can continue there
and personal necessity is not borne out. It was held after appreciating
the evidence by the two Courts below that the landlord required the
demised premises for his personal necessity.
No re-appraisal and re-appreciation of evidence can be done
while exercising revisional jurisdiction by this Court. However, taking into
consideration of the fact that the tenant has been already evicted and
possession has been taken over by the landlord, no interference is
warranted.
Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
November 12, 2008
“DK”