Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L.Anand, J.
Dr. J.S.Sodhi
Versus
Mela Ram
Civil Revision No. 2003 of 2001,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 6, 2001
TENANT - EVICTION - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING - LANDLORD'S NEED FOR PERSONAL USE AND OCCUPATION - SUFFICIENCY OF ACCOMMODATION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 13(3) OF THE EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949 - APPLICABILITY OF HARBILAS RAI BANSAL V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER, 1995(2) RCR 672 (SC) - RELEVANCE OF SUBSEQUENT EVENTS - APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 CPC FOR AMENDMENT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT - DISMISSAL - VALIDITY - ORDER 2 RULE 2 CPC - CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA - REJECTION OF TENANT'S CONTENTIONS - CONFIRMATION OF EVICTION ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to Chandigarh, seeking the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground of bona fide need. The landlord claimed that he required the premises for his personal use and occupation and for the requirement of his son. The tenant denied the allegations and pleaded that the ground of personal necessity was not available to the landlord as the premises in question were a commercial building. The Rent Controller and the appellate authority allowed the eviction petition, holding that the landlord's need was genuine and bonafide.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the tenant's revision petition, upholding the eviction order. The Court held that the landlord's need for the premises was bonafide and reasonable, and that the tenant could not dictate to the landlord how he should adjust himself. The Court also held that the landlord was not required to plead and prove that he was not occupying any other building in the urban area or that he had not vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Rent Act, as these facts were clear from the ejectment application and the landlord's statement. The Court further held that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement was rightly dismissed, as the proposed amendment was vague and did not disclose any subsequent events which could have changed the landlord's need for the premises.
Issues: 1. Whether the landlord's need for the premises was bona fide and reasonable? 2. Whether the tenant could dictate to the landlord how he should adjust himself? 3. Whether the landlord was required to plead and prove that he was not occupying any other building in the urban area or that he had not vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Rent Act? 4. Whether the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement was rightly dismissed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The landlord's need for the premises was bona fide and reasonable, as he required the premises for his personal use and occupation and for the requirement of his son, and the existing accommodation in his possession was insufficient. 2. The tenant could not dictate to the landlord how he should adjust himself, as the landlord was the best judge of his own needs. 3. The landlord was not required to plead and prove that he was not occupying any other building in the urban area or that he had not vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Rent Act, as these facts were clear from the ejectment application and the landlord's statement. 4. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement was rightly dismissed, as the proposed amendment was vague and did not disclose any subsequent events which could have changed the landlord's need for the premises.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the tenant's revision petition, upholding the eviction order.
R.L.Anand, J.
1. This is a tenants revision and it has been filed by Dr. J.S. Sodhi son of Inder Singh, against the judgment dated 23.3.2001 passed by the appellate authority, Chandigarh, which affirmed the order dated 29.8.2000, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh who ordered the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises on the ground of bona fide need.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Mela Ram respondent-landlord filed the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as applicable to Chandigarh for the eviction of the petitioner-tenant Dr. J.S. Sodhi from S.C.O. No. 809, Sector 22-A (Ground Floor), Chandigarh and the case set up by the landlord is that he is the landlord and owner of SCO Nos. 809- 810 situated in Sector 22-A, Chandigarh. The petitioner-tenant took the ground floor of SCO No. 809 on monthly rent of Rs. 5500/- in addition to water and electricity charges, for general trade. There was another tenant on the ground floor of SCO No. 810. The landlord specifically alleged that SCO Nos. 809-810 are joint. Further it has been alleged by the respondent-landlord that he earlier filed ejectment application on the ground of non-payment of rent, sub-letting, change of user and materially impairment of the value and utility of the building and the same was allowed on 22.5.1996 on the ground of materially impairment of the value and utility. The tenant filed an appeal against the said order. Further the case set up by the landlord was that earlier the ground of personal necessity of non-residential building was not available to him and as such this ground he could not take in the earlier ejectment petition. Now there is a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court on the basis of which non-residential building can be got vacated on the ground of personal necessity. Hence the present petition.
Note : Perhaps the landlord wants to avail the benefit of the famous judgment of Harbilass case, 1995(2) RCR(Rent) 672 (SC).
3. To continue with the pleadings of the landlord it is averred by him that he requires the demised premises for him and for the requirement of his son. He wants complete ground floors of SCO No. 809-810 for personal use and occupation. He would also file the ejectment application against the other tenant who is in occupation of the ground floor of SCO No. 810, which is adjacent to the demised premises. Highlighting his need the landlord- respondent alleged that at present he is carrying on his business in a small Booth No. 32, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, along with another Booth No. 31, which is owned by his wife. Both the Booths are very small and these are not serving the well established business of the petitioner. It is alleged that respondent-landlords daughter-in-law also owned a small garage No. 2, Sector 22-D, and garage No. 5 which is on rent with the landlord at a monthly rent of Rs. 350/-. That accommodation is being used as a small godown. The entire accommodation does not serve the purpose of the landlord who is well established businessman and as per his status and flourishing business, he requires a complete ground floor of the demised premises including the portion in occupation of another tenant on the ground floor i.e. SCO No. 810. It was further averred that at present the son of the landlord is doing the business along with him. The landlord wants to settle his son independently for the purpose of his business. After getting the premises vacated he would sit himself on the demised premises and his son will look after the business already being run in Booth No. 31 and 32, which are too small in which even 4/5 customers cannot stand at one point of time. Sufficient accommodation is available only in SCO No. 809-810 which includes the demised premises. It is further alleged by the landlord that he does not own or occupy any other non- residential premises within the urban area of Chandigarh except Booth No. 32 and Garage No.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
