Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Ram Pal Saini – Appellant
Vs.
Surinder Singh – Respondent
C.M. No. 2582 CII of 2011 and Civil Revision No. 654 of 2011
Decided On : 07-01-2016
EVICTION - East Punjab Urban Rent Restrict Act, 1949 - Section 13 - [Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrict Act, 1949] - The court discussed the bona fide necessity of the landlord and the suitability of the premises for the intended business of the landlord. The judgments of Pardeep Kumar v. Amar Nath, Madho Ram Garg v. Baldev Singh Bath, and M/s. Satpal Vijay Kumar v. Sushil Kumar were referenced to support the contention of the appellant. The court found that there was no evidence to establish the bona fide necessity of the landlord and upheld the findings of the lower courts.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity to run a business of readymade garments in the demised premises. The tenant contested the eviction on the basis that the landlord's necessity was not bona fide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence worth mentioning to establish the bona fide necessity of the landlord. It upheld the findings of the lower courts and dismissed the revision petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the landlord's bona fide necessity for eviction was established.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bona fide need of the landlord is a good ground for eviction, provided there is evidence to support it. In this case, the court found no evidence to establish the landlord's bona fide necessity.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the findings of the lower courts.
Augustine George Masih, J.
C.M. No. 2582 CII of 2011
C.M. is allowed.
1. Exemption is granted from filing the certified copy of judgment and decree of the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur.
Civil Revision No. 654 of 2011
Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 01.10.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur. whereby the petition for ejectment under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrict Act, 1949 stands dismissed, appeal against which has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur on 21.10.2010.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that eviction of the respondent-tenant was sought on the ground of personal necessity to run a business of readymade garments in the demised premises (shop) as he was on the verge of his retirement from his private job. She contends that the bona fide necessity of the landlord can be gazed from the fact that after his retirement, he wanted to keep himself busy and also to earn his livelihood out of the proceeds by running the said business and, therefore bona fide need of the petitioner is apparent. She further contends that it has been truly and correctly disclosed that the petitioner has two other shops in the same locality but the same are not suitable for the business of readymade garments which the petitioner intends to start in the demised premises. Her contention is that assertion of the landlord about the bona fide requirement and the business sought to be run should have been accepted by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. In support of his contentions, she places reliance upon the judgments of this Court reported as Pardeep Kumar v. Amar Nath, (2007-2) 146 P.L.R. 1, Madho Ram Garg v. Baldev Singh Bath and another, (2008-2) 150 P.L.R. 769 and M/s. Satpal Vijay Kumar v. Sushil Kumar, (2011-1) 161 P.L.R. 274. On the basis of the said judgments, she contends that the impugned orders cannot sustain and deserve to be set-aside. It has further been asserted by the counsel that merely because there are two other shops adjacent to the demised shop, which is being sought to be vacated, out of which one is on rent with another tenant and the second one is being used by his son, cannot be a ground for coming to a conclusion that there is no bona fide necessity of the petitioner. She states that the back portion of the demised shop can be used for expansion and for storing of the goods and, therefore, this is the most suitable shop for the purpose of business, which is being sought to be run by the petitioner-landlord. Prayer has, thus, been made for allowing the present revision petition by setting-aside the impugned orders and allowing the eviction petition.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the bona fide requirement of the landlord if not to be established but atleast the same should be apparent from the evidence which is brought on record. In the present case, what has been brought on record is mere urge or desire to get the shop vacated and not a necessity as the shop which is lying vacant adjacent to the one which is sought to be vacated is being used as a car garage by son of the petitioner and that too when he comes to reside with the petitioner during his vacations. On the other occasions, the said shop is lying vacant. That apart, he asserts that the petitioner has admitted that he had been running the same business on an earlier occasion also, which is being sought to be run from the said shop but now his move is to get the shop vacated. Further, the shop which is on rent has been rented out on 6/7 different occasions to different tenants in the last 6/7 years, which also shows that there is no bona fide necessity on the part of the landlord, which would justify his claim as has been made in the eviction petition. The judgments on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable to the case in hand. Prayer has, thus, been made for dismissal
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
