SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(P&H) 1508

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L.Anand, J.
Krishna Johar
Versus
Prem Singh
C.R. No. 3917 of 1999,
Decided On : DECEMBER 9, 1999

The landlord's need for the property must be bona fide and not a mere excuse to evict the tenant.

Headnote:

EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 13, 15 - PERSONAL NECESSITY - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - LANDLORD'S NEED MUST BE GENUINE AND NOT A MERE EXCUSE TO EVICT TENANT - COURT WILL CONSIDER FACTORS SUCH AS NUMBER OF ROOMS AVAILABLE, FAMILY SIZE, AND INTENDED USE OF PROPERTY.

Fact of the Case:

Landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. The Rent Controller and the appellate authority dismissed the petition, finding that the landlord's need was not bona fide.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the landlord's need was not bona fide and was only with a view to increase the rent. The court considered factors such as the number of rooms available to the landlord, the size of the landlord's family, and the intended use of the property.

Issues: Whether the landlord's need for the property was bona fide.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the landlord's need must be genuine and not a mere excuse to evict the tenant. The court considered factors such as the number of rooms available to the landlord, the size of the landlord's family, and the intended use of the property.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the landlord's revision petition.

Judgment

R.L.Anand, J.

1. This is a landlords revision and has been directed against the order dated 7.5.1999 passed by the appellate authority. Chandigarh, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-landlord.

2. Krishna Johar filed a petition Under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as applicable to the U.T. Chandigarh, against the tenant Prem Singh, on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. Both the grounds were decided against the petitioner by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 30.11.1996. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller the petitioner filed a statutory appeal Under Section 15 of the Act and for the reasons given in paras 9 to 15, which are reproduce herein below, the appellate authority vide the impugned judgment dated 7.5.1999, dismissed the appeal:-

"9. As far as; the ground of non-payment of rent is concerned, the same is not pressed at the time of arguments. Even otherwise, the rent having been tendered within the stipulated period, the ground of non-payment of rent is not available to the landlord-appellants.

10. Now, as far as the ground of personal necessity is concerned, the house consists of 1-1/2 stories on 10 marlas plot. On the ground floor, the landlord is residing. The 10 marlas plot consists of four rooms on the ground floor, four rooms on the first floor and two rooms on the second floor. In the present case two rooms have been converted into one drawing room on the ground floor. Thus, the landlords are in possession of three rooms on the ground floor, two rooms on the first floor and one room on the second floor. The tenant is in possession of only one room on the second floor. During the pendency of appeal, it has come that two rooms, which were in possession of the tenant on the first floor have also fell vacant. In these circumstances, the landlords are in possession of 3+4+1 i.e. 8 rooms on the ground floor, first floor and second floor.

11. The family of the landlords consists of appellant Krishna Johar, Umesh Johar, wife of Umesh Johar and three children, who are now aged as 16, 20 and 8 years. Even if, one separate room is given to all the three children and two rooms to the petitioner, then the total accommodation required by them comes out to be 5 rooms. Whereas, they are in possession of 8 rooms. It has also come in evidence that both the married daughters of Krishna Johar reside at Chandigarh and Panchkula respectively. In these circumstances, prima facie, there is no necessity for occupying the room in possession of the tenant.

12. Counsel for the appellants has now submitted that the house being a compact unit, the same is required by the petitioners, because they do not want to share with a stranger. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Hans Raj v. Pakhar Singh, 1980(2) R.R.R. (P&H) 601. In that case the landlord was initially residing in the village and thereafter, he shifted in the house in dispute. In these circumstances, it was held that it is for the landlord to reside without any interference. However, in the present case, the landlords are residing in the house from the very beginning and while they were residing, they have inducted the present respondent, as tenant. Thus, the dictum laid down in the above referred authority is not applicable. Another authority relied upon by the counsel is Budh Singh v. Rajinder Singh, (1987-1)91 P.L.R. 200. In that case also, it is held that it is for the landlord to see as to whether he wants separate accommodation from his son or not. After perusing the authority. I find that the same is also not applicable in the circumstances of the present case.

13. The counsel has now banked upon the statement of one witness examined by the respondent i.e. RW1, who was tenant on the first floor. This witness has admitted that the premises are required by the petitioner for bona fide requirement. This statement, however, is of no help to the a






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top