Back
2008 Supreme(P&H) 886
2008 (3) RCR(Civ) 658
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Surinder Singh .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Dr. Davinder Mohan ....Respondent
CIVIL REVISION NO.3447 OF 2001
Decided On : APRIL 09, 2008
Mr. A. K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Nipun Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent.
The need of a landlord can extend to the requirements of other family members, and non-residential premises can be sought for the business use of the landlord's family members.
Headnote:
Eviction - Shop Portion - [Rent Control Act, 1950, Section 13(2)(ii)] - The court discussed the need for bonafide use of the demised premises by the landlord's son and daughter-in-law, citing relevant case laws and legal provisions. The court upheld the landlord's right to seek eviction for non-residential premises needed for the son's business use, and emphasized that the need of a landlord can extend to the requirements of other family members.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant in a shop, was facing eviction for non-payment of rent and the landlord's claim of needing the premises for his son and daughter-in-law's practice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner in arrears of rent and dismissed the petition, emphasizing the landlord's right to seek eviction for the business use of the demised premises by his son.
Issues: Non-payment of rent, bonafide need for the demised premises by the landlord's family members, compliance with court directions.
Ratio Decidendi: The need of a landlord can extend to the requirements of other family members, and non-residential premises can be sought for the business use of the landlord's family members.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed as the petitioner was found in arrears of rent and failed to comply with court directions.
RANJIT SINGH, J. - The petitioner has impugned an order of his eviction from shop portion of S.C.F. 49, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh. Respondent, Dr.Davinder Mohan, who is owner and landlord of the demised premises, has filed this petition for eviction of the petitioner. Petitioner is a tenant in a shop at monthly rent of Rs.1500/-besides water and electricity charges. His eviction is sought on the ground that he has not paid the rent, not tendered the arrears of rent from 1.9.1995 despite repeated requests and that the said premises is required for use and occupation of Dr.Vivek Mohan, M.B.B.S. and Dr.Vandana Mohan, who are son and daughter-in-law of the respondent-landlord. It is pleaded that son of the respondent is practicing doctor in Homeopathy and his daughter in law is serving in the Haryana Government. They both intend to start practice after leaving the Government job and that is how the demised premises is needed for their use and occupation. It is further claimed that at present son of the landlord is practicing at Panchkula in a residential house, which is not permitted in view of the rules framed by HUDA authorities. The case also is that the son of the landlord is finding it difficult to practice at Panchkula as he is resident of Chandigarh and has a better scope for his profession at Chandigarh and so they can start this practice only if additional accommodation is made available to them i.e. the demised premises. The building statedly is located in the good business shopping centre and the son of the landlord is practicing at Panchkula on account of non-availability of commercial premises at Chandigarh. It is also pleaded that accommodation in Sector 18 House of the landlord is not sufficient to establish the clinic and so the demised premises would be needed by the son of the landlord to avoid hardship to the patients who are basically from Chandigarh and Mohali.
2. Notice was issued to the petitioner, who filed a written statement. He has pleaded that the present litigation is offshoot of failure of previous litigation filed by the landlord. It is pointed out that earlier attempt to evict the petitioner was declined by Rent Controller on 31.8.1982, which was even taken upto Hon'ble Supreme Court but the order of the Rent Controller was up-held. The petitioner tendered the rent as claimed alongwith interest and claimed that eviction petition was not maintainable on the ground of personal necessity in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is applicable to the territory of Punjab. The tenant would also point out in his reply that the landlord is having his homeopathic practice at his Sector 18 House but is now leading a retired life. He accordingly pleads that his son and daughter in law who are living in Panchkula are having good source of income and have the option of being in the house of 2 kanals at Chandigarh. The petitioner pleads that the respondent-landlord has undergone a major brain surgery and is unfit for practice and has also sold his SCF No.48 Sector 23C, Chandigarh, about 10 years ago. On the basis of these pleadings, the petitioner opposed his eviction.
3. The Revision Petition was admitted on 2.5.2002. While admitting the revision petition, this Court noticed that identical points as raised in this petition were pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2891 of 2001. The dispossession of the petitioner was stayed while admitting the revision petition. The respondent landlord subsequently moved a miscellaneous application No.15946 C-II of 2005 for fixing the fair rent for use and occupation of the demised premises by the petitioner. Notice of this application was issued to the petitioner and the same was decided by this Court on 24.5.2006.
4. Having regard to the different submissions made, this Court came to the conclusion that the amount of mesne profits comes to Rs.18,650/-per month, which was rounded off to Rs.18,000/-per month. Accordingly, Court d
