Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Naresh Arora – Appellant
Versus
Surinder Kumar(deceased) Through His Lrs. – Respondent
CR 357/2023 (O&M) & Caveat Application No. 3518/2022
Decided On : 20-01-2023
Rent Control - Ejectment Petition - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 - Section 13 - [PERSONAL NECESSITY] - [Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949] - The court discussed the requirement of personal necessity as a ground for ejectment under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949. The court considered the affidavits filed by the landlord and his daughter, who was a widow with young children, and the issuance of a General Power of Attorney in her favor. The court referred to previous judgments to support the admissibility of multiple affidavits and the requirement of personal necessity for eviction.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a landlord, filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949, seeking eviction of the petitioner, a tenant, from a shop. The eviction was sought on the ground of personal necessity as the landlord wanted to settle his widowed daughter with two young children in the demised shop.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that upon the landlord's death, the daughter was entitled to seek eviction in her own behalf, especially considering the General Power of Attorney issued in her favor and the admission of her requirement by the other legal heirs. The court also cited previous judgments to support its findings.
Issues: The issues involved the admissibility of multiple affidavits and the requirement of personal necessity for eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the daughter was entitled to seek eviction in her own behalf upon the landlord's death, supported by the General Power of Attorney issued in her favor and the admission of her requirement by the other legal heirs. The court also cited previous judgments to support its findings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
JUDGMENT
Nidhi Gupta, J. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant for setting aside the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Ld. Rent Controller, Jalandhar (Annexure P-12) whereby the application of the petitioner for rejecting/striking off the second and third affidavits filed by the LR of the respondent-landlord, has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Surinder Kumar/ original landlord (now deceased), filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 for ejectment of the petitioner from the demised shop/ describable as shop No. 4 in property no. 494, Guru Nanakpura (East), Jalandhar. Ejectment of the petitioner was sought on various grounds including ground of personal necessity as respondent-landlord wanted to settle his daughter Ritu Bala/ (present respondent no.(iv)), who was a widow with two young children.
3. The only submission made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner is that great injustice has been caused to the petitioner as the learned Rent Controller has time and again allowed the said respondent(s) to file various affidavits as a result of which the respondent has been able to improve his case with each successive affidavit. It is submitted that each affidavit contains different pleadings as a result of which, over the time, material improvements have been permitted to be wrought in the case originally put forth by the respondent. Learned counsel submits that there are as many as four affidavits at Annexure P-3, Annexure P-5, Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-9 on record. Learned counsel also submits that requirement of the present respondent (iv) whose husband has expired, cannot be considered to be requirement of respondent Surinder Kumar/ original landlord of the demised premises.
Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties.
4. Perusal of the record shows that the first affidavit at Annexure P3 dated nil, was filed by Sh. Surinder Kumar- original landlord and father of the present respondent(s), wherein it has been mentioned that he requires the demised premises for his daughter/present respondent (iv), who has lost her husband on 22.2.2011. Surinder Kumar/ original landlord has stated in the said affidavit that the said daughter of the landlord has two sons aged 16 and 12 years and accordingly, he requires the demised premises for his daughter who has come along with her sons to live with Surinder Kumar. It has further been stated therein that Property no. 494 contains five shops of which shop nos. 2, 3 and 4 (shop no. 4 being the demised shop), were required by respondent (iv) to start her business.
5. Thereafter, respondent(iv) filed affidavit dated 15.5.2018 (Annexure P-5) to bring abovesaid facts on record in her own behalf.
6. Perusal of third affidavit dated 5.2.2019 (Annexure P-7) shows that by virtue of said affidavit, respondent no. (iv) herein put on record the fact that Surinder Kumar had issued General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent(iv) Ritu Bala vide POA dated 4.1.2019 Ex. A-3; and that as respondent/landlord/Surinder Kumar was suffering from Cancer, he was no longer able to pursue the present litigation.
7. The present affidavit dated 2.9.2022 which is subject matter of the impugned order has been filed by the respondent No. (iv) to bring on record the fact of the death of her father-respondent/landlord Surinder Kumar. Rest of the averments in the affidavit are merely reiterating the facts and requirement of personal necessity already mentioned in previous affidavits, including the fact that Property no. 494 contains five shops of which shop nos. 2, 3 and 4 (shop no. 4 being the demised shop), were required by respondent (iv) to start her business.
8. In my view, upon the expiry of respondent/original-landlord Surinder Kumar, respondent no.iv is entitled to seek eviction of the petitioner in her own behalf, especially in view of the fact that the original landlord had already issued General Power of Attorn
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the landlord's daughter to seek eviction in her own behalf upon the landlord's death, supported by the General Power of Attorney....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments to pleadings should not be allowed at a belated stage of the trial unless it is shown that the party could not have raised the matt....
Under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, a landlord can seek eviction for personal necessity without being the owner of the premises.
The genuine need of the landlord for eviction under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
The landlord's requirement for eviction should be based on occupation rather than ownership of other properties within the same municipal limits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that proposed amendments to an ejectment application under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 must be necessary for the proper and ju....
The landlord's genuine need for the premises and his right to decide the suitability of the premises for his business are crucial in eviction cases under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1....
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
