Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.
Arun Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
Gurcharan Singh – Respondent
C.R. No. 1630 of 2017 (O & M)
Decided On : 24-03-2017
(B) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13--Eviction--Bona fide need--Merely because there were two electricity connection with different sub divisions of the electricity department did not lead to the fact that there was ownership of more shops and mere violation of the electricity rules as such would not be a ground to come a conclusion that there was ownership of more than one shop which had been already mentioned in the pleadings. (Para 5)
(C) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13--Eviction--Bona fide need-Appellant, son of landlord being a partner in a firm on a subsequent date would not as such debar the landlord for seeking the relief--The date of institution is to be seen and merely because during the pendency, his son had started doing business, would not as such be a ground to deny the benefit of the need which was the requirement at the time of filing petition and which can still be utilized as such and can be put into motion. (Para 5)
(D) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13--Eviction--Bona fide need--Bona fide and genuine need of the landlord is to be taken into account and that the Court would not put its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord and a practical approach was to be kept in mind--The requirement should be sincere and honest and not a mere pretense. (Para 6)
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.
1. The present revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller on 26.07.2016 and directing ejectment on the ground of bona-fide requirement for the two sons of the respondent. The Appellate Authority has upheld that order on 11.01.2017. On 10.03.2017, the following order was passed:-
“The ejectment has been done by both the Courts below on the ground that the property is required for the sons of the landlord. Counsel has tried to demonstrate that on an earlier occasion some property has been sold by the landlord and, therefore, bona-fide requirement is not made out. However, it is not disputed that the sale took place in 2006 whereas the petition was filed in the year 2010. The requirement of the landlord can keep on changing with times and therefore the said argument can not be given much weight.
Faced with the situation, counsel submits that he needs some time to take instructions as to whether the petitioner is willing to file an affidavit to vacate the premises by 31.12.2017. Counsel for the caveator-respondent has no objection if such an arrangement is made out.
Adjourned to 24.03.2017.”
2. Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate has now submitted that the tenant is not willing to seek time to vacate the premises. Resultantly, the matter is being decided on merits.
3. The claim for bona-fide requirement is on account of the two sons Sukhpreet Singh and Gurpreet Singh from the shop in question which was rented out in the year 2000 at Rs. 550/- and which was increased to Rs. 650./-. Necessary averments were made that the landlord or his sons did not have any other property in the urban area of Amritsar. The stand of the respondent was that though they were married but they were dependent upon applicant for their residence and business. The defence of the tenant was that the landlord had constructed two shops and changed the nature and converted them into one. The elder son was carrying on the business of cloth in the shop which was removed by constructing a wall. He had sold his own House No. 97 keeping his residence at another house. There were lot of properties whereby the sons could be adjusted. One shop had been sold on 17.04.2006 to one Narinder Singh Bhatia, which is adjacent to other shop on the opposite side.
4. The landlord examined himself as AW-4 and one of his sons Gurpreet Singh as AW-5 whereas, the tenant examined as many as 10 witnesses. The issue of the non-payment of rent w.e.f. 01.04.2010 was decided against the landlord on account of the tender. Regarding the bona-fide requirement, the statements of the landlord and his son were taken into consideration. Various material was brought on record to show that Gurpreet Singh was a partner in Dream County & Homes & Villas LLP and therefore, the defence was that his son was doing independent business and the need was not bona-fide. The Rent Controller noticed that the ejectment petition was filed on 13.08.2010 and the Company was incorporated only on 13.06.2013. Resultantly, because he had started doing some business, it could not be said that he had to sit idle and wait for the decision of the proceedings. Similarly, the shop which was allegedly sold was in the year 2006 and, therefore, if the landlord was in need of some money and sold part of his property, it would not be a ground to disbelieve his bona-fide requirement. The ownership as such of other properties in the area, which were alleged to have been concealed, were also examined and it was held that merely because two shops had been merged in one shop, could not as such deny the benefit to the landlord. The landlord was running cloth business in one of the shops in question. Accordingly, reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1998 (8) SCC 119; Maganlal vs. Nana Saheb, 2009 (1) RCR (Rent) 16; Dattatraya Laxman Kamble vs. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde and Another, 1999 (1) RCR (Re
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
