Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 1701
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
CR No.1311 of 2011 (O&M)
Sant Kumar and another......Petitioner(s)
Versus
R.S. Virk and others......Respondent(s)
CR No.1329 of 2011 (O&M)
Smt. Preeti Jain......Petitioner(s)
Versus
R.S. Virk and others......Respondent(s)
CR No.1311, 1329 of 2011 (O&M)
Decided on : 15.9.2011
Mr. Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. G.S .Punia, Advocate for the respondents.
The landlord's need for eviction need not be immediate and existing on the date of the application, allowing for anticipation of future requirement.
Headnote:
EVICTION - Landlord-Tenant Dispute - Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 - Section 13-A(1-A) - Section 13(3)(a)(i)
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-landlord filed eviction applications against the petitioners, claiming personal necessity of the shop premises for his own business and legal practice after retirement. The petitioners contested the eviction, denying the landlord's status and personal necessity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, upheld the landlord's personal necessity claim, and rejected the tenant's argument of premature eviction filing.
Issues: 1. Existence of landlord-tenant relationship 2. Landlord's personal necessity 3. Premature eviction filing
Ratio Decidendi: The landlord's need for the premises need not be immediate and existing on the date of the eviction application. The landlord is entitled to anticipate his requirement in a reasonably foreseeable future.
Final Decision: The eviction petitions were dismissed, upholding the landlord's personal necessity claim and finding a valid landlord-tenant relationship.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
This judgment shall dispose of two revision petitions i.e. CR Nos.1311 and 1329 of 2011 as the same have arisen out of similar facts and common questions of law on similar grounds have been raised in both these petitions. However, for convenience sake, facts are being taken from CR No.1311 of 2011.
It may also be relevant to mention that in both these petitions, the eviction of the petitioners have been ordered from the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent-landlord by the Authorities below.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed the ejectment applications against the petitioners making averments that the petitioner along with one Darshan Lal son of Shri Mehar Chand were jointly inducted as tenants in the shop in question for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 1.7.1984 to 31.5.1985, at the rate of 1300/- per month vide unregistered rent deed dated 3.6.1984. Subsequently, Darshan Lal retired from the said partnership and Sant Kumar-petitioner No.1 is continuing to occupy the shop in question and is running his business by describing the same as Vandana Saree Emporium (petitioner No.2). The respondent- landlord further averred that he being co-owner/landlord has filed the ejectment petition in his individual capacity having bona fide requirement of the shop in question for his own business of running a coaching institute for aspiring law students besides his own office to give legal advice to the clients on any matter pertaining to their legal problems in the field of law in the demised premises after his retirement from service, which is situated in a prominent commercial locality. It was further averred that after retirement, he wants to settle at Yamuna Nagar, as his native village Chhachhrauli is situated at a distance of 16 kilometers from Yamuna Nagar. He has also practiced as an Advocate in the Courts at Jagadhri before joining the service. He has neither occupied any commercial building in the urban area of Jagadhri or Yamuna Nagar nor has ever vacated any such building without sufficient cause after commencement of the Act. It was pleaded that though he would have right to seek such eviction by resorting to section 13-A (1-A) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') , one year prior to his superannuation, yet this petition has been filed as he is entitled to anticipate his requirement in a reasonably foreseeable future. Thus, a prayer for eviction of petitioner from the shop in question was made with a direction to hand over its vacant possession to him by 31.3.2011 so that he may make necessary arrangements in time to start his business immediately upon his superannuation on 31.8.2011.
It may be relevant to notice that in the application out of which CR No.1329 of 2011 has arisen, the respondent-landlord has averred that the petitioner was inducted as tenant in the premises in question (i.e. first floor of the shop) for a period of 11 months w.e.f 15.10.2000 to 14.9.2001 at the rate of 2000/- per month vide unregistered rent deed dated 30.10.2000. The other averments with regard to personal necessity are the same as pleaded in the ejectment petition out of which CR No.1311 of 2011 has arisen.
In response to the notice, the petitioner-tenant appeared and filed his written statement. In his written statement, petitioner No.1-Sant Kumar had raised a preliminary objection that respondent No.1 had no locus standi to file the present petition as there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between them because property in question was rented out by Z.S. Virk and Tajinder Singh (respondents No.2 and 3) vide rent deed dated 3.6.1984 @ ` 1300/- per month which was later on increased from time to time and at present, he is regularly making the payment of rent at the rate of ` 2,750/- to the landlord. It was stated that respondent No.1 was estopped from filing the present petition by h
