Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 1358
2011 (4) RCR(Civ) 772
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
Surinder Dhingra - Petitioner
Versus
Bhim Sain Arora - Respondent
Civil Revision No.815 of 2011 (O&M)
Decided on: July 13, 2011
Mr. R.C. Setia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Ranjan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arnav Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.
The landlord's bonafide need for eviction and the sufficiency of evidence to establish necessary statutory provisions under the Rent Act.
Headnote:
Landlord-Tenant Dispute - Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 - Section 13(3)(a)(i)
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a tenant's revision petition challenging an order for his eviction from a shop on the ground of the landlord's personal necessity and bonafide need. The tenant contested the eviction application, denying the landlord-tenant relationship and asserting collusion between the petitioner and his mother to evict the landlord.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Controller dismissed the rent petition, finding that the landlord failed to prove his bonafide necessity. The Appellate Authority reversed some findings but affirmed the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the maintainability of the rent petition.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement for ejectment, maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the petitioner, and estoppel from filing the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the landlord's bonafide need was established, and the tenant's objection regarding the pleading of necessary ingredients under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act was rejected. The court emphasized that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and that any ambiguity in pleadings regarding statutory provisions can be made good in the evidence.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the eviction order, finding that the landlord's bonafide need was duly established, and dismissed the revision petition.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - This is tenant's revision petition challenging the judgment dated 6.2.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority, Karnal whereby while accepting the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord, the ejectment of the petitioner was ordered from the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity and bonafide need of the landlord.
2. As per the averments made in the rent petition, the disputed shop was rented out by the respondents to late Shri Ved Parkash Sharma, father of the petitioner @ Rs.1,000/-per month and the rent was being received by the mother of the respondent as per family settlement between the respondent and his brothers, she was authorised to collect the rent from the tenants. The shop in question had fallen to the share of the respondent in the family partition. A writing was executed between the brothers and their mother in this regard. The eviction was sought on the ground that the petitioner had no right to occupy the shop after the death of his father who was in arrears of rent after 1.4.2005. The respondent also pleaded that the premises were required for his own use and occupation as after retirement from Haryana State Electricity Board on 30.9.2005, he wanted to start his own business of electrical appliances in the premises. Moreover, his son had completed M.Com. and Chartered Accountancy and, thus, the shop in question was required for personal need.
3. Upon notice, the petitioner appeared and contested the ejectment application stating that the same was not maintainable as respondent had no locus standi to file the same. It was further asserted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further stated that father of the petitioner was a tenant under Smt. Sheela Devi who was collecting the rent and issuing the receipts to him The rent @ Rs.1,000/-per month was being paid regularly by Shri Ved Parkash. After his death, the petitioner continued to work in the shop of his father and requested the landlady to accept the rent and when she refused, he filed an application under Section 6-A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rent Act'). The petitioner and his mother were colluding with each other to evict the respondent from the demised premises. The factum of partition between the petitioner and his family was denied. All other contentions raised by the respondent-landlord were denied and dismissal of the petition was prayed for.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree for ejectment of property in question, as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPR
3. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR
4. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPR
5. Relief.
5. The Rent Controller held that there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and, thus, the rent petition was maintainable. The ground of non-payment of rent was not accepted. While dismissing the rent petition, the learned Rent Controller further held that the respondent-landlord has failed to prove his bonafide necessity. Resultantly, the rent application was dismissed.
6. The respondent-landlord filed Rent Appeal No.64 of 2010 against the order of the Rent Controller, challenging the findings on the issues which was decided against him. The petitioner-tenant also filed Rent Appeal No.65 of 2010 challenging its findings on issue No.1 regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant. However, the Appellate Authority vide impugned judgment dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller on issue No.1 holding that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the rent petition was maintainable. Findings of the Rent Controller
