Back
2013 Supreme(P&H) 1543
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
Kulwant Kaur and others - Appellant
Versus
Sardarni Sawinder Kaur Dhillon and others - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 6089 of 2011 (O&M)
Decided On : 31-07-2013
For the Petitioners:- Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:- Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitin Sarin, Advocate.
The landlord is the best judge of his requirements with regard to the place where he wants to set up his business, and the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord. The court also emphasized that admission is the best evidence on which the opposite party can rely upon.
Headnote:
Eviction - Bonafide Necessity - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) - [BONAFIDE NECESSITY] - [EVICTION] - [Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a)] - The court discussed the bonafide necessity of the respondent-landlords for their own use and occupation and the condition of the demised premises, finding that the respondent-landlords required the premises for their own bonafide use and occupation and that the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The court upheld the findings of the authorities below on the issue of personal bonafide need of the respondent-landlords and the condition of the demised premises, holding that the respondent-landlords' need was genuine and bonafide.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-landlords sought eviction of the petitioners, claiming bonafide necessity for their own use and occupation and stating that the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The petitioners denied the claims and raised various objections.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the respondent-landlords, upholding their bonafide necessity for the premises and the condition of the demised premises, and ordered the eviction of the petitioners.
Issues: The issues included arrears of rent, bonafide necessity of the respondent-landlords, the condition of the demised premises, liability of the petitioners to be evicted, estoppel, locus standi, res judicata, and misjoinder/nonjoinder of necessary parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent-landlords' need for the premises was genuine and bonafide, and that the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision: The eviction petition was allowed, and the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed, upholding the eviction orders.
This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the order dated 21.08.2006 of the Rent Controller, Amritsar whereby eviction of the petitioners has been ordered on the ground of bonafide necessity of the respondent-landlords and on the ground that the premises in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, and the judgment dated 17.08.2011 of the Appellate Authority, Amritsar whereby appeal filed by the petitioner-tenants against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller was also dismissed.
In the eviction petition, the respondent-landlords pleaded that they require the demised premises for their own bonafide use and occupation as respondent No.3 has since retired from Army as Colonel on 21.07.1997 and is without any avocation in life, and respondent No.4 is a widow and wants to absorb herself in the business to keep herself busy, and therefore, they need the demised premises for their own use and occupation having been interested in setting up a restaurant on modern lines in the demised premises. It has been further averred that the respondent-landlords do not own or occupy any other commercial premises in the urban area of Amritsar. The respondentlandlords further pleaded that the demised premises was otherwise unfit and unsafe for human habitation having outlived its life and they want to rebuilt the same before commencement of their avocation therein. The structure is without proper foundation. It is of mud mortar and walls are cracked and disintegrated. It is most insanitary, full of dampness and affected by Saltar porter. Even the wooden roof had collapsed but the petitioners have relaid the same with R.B. slab without the consent of the respondent-landlords but the walls are unable to bear the massive weight of R.B. slab. The flooring provided is kacha with ruts and thus, the petitioner-tenants are liable to be evicted. Upon notice, the petitioners filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that they were the tenants under respondents No.1 and 2 but denied that the premises in question has fallen to the share of respondents No.3 to 5. It was further denied that they were liable to be ejected from the demised premises. It was further stated that they have already paid the arrears of rent upto 31.07.1990 and have tendered the rent upto 30.09.1998 along with costs and interest. The requirement of respondent-landlords for the demised premises for their own use and occupation was also denied. It was further denied that the respondents do not own or possess any other commercial premises in the urban area of Amritsar. It was further stated that the respondent-landlords own an area of more than 5000-6000 square yards in the urban estate and even that adjoins the demised premises. It was further denied that the demised premises was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was also denied that the demised premises requires reconstruction. The other material averments made in application were denied and dismissal of the petition was prayed.
The respondent-landlords filed replication denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterating the contents of the eviction petition.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:
“1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent as prayed for? OPA
2. Whether the petitioners No.3 to 5 require the demised premises for their own bonafide use and occupation? OPA
3. Whether the demised premises are unfit and unsafe for human habitation? OPA
4. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises? OPA
5. Whether the applicants are estopped from their own act and conduct from filing the present application? OPR
6. Whether the applicants have no locus standi for filing the present application? OPR
7. Whether the application is barred by the principle of resjudicata? OPR
8. Whether the application is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of ne
