Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2449
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Bimla Paitka (Deceased) & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Jasneet Inder Kaur – Respondent
CR-5225 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 06-11-2023
Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arman Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Pankaj Gautam, Advocate; For the Petitioners
The court affirmed that eviction can be sought for personal necessity under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, applicable to both residential and non-residential buildings.
Headnote:(A) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Eviction of tenants - Requirement of landlady for personal use - Concurrent findings by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority on genuine necessity of landlady affirmed - Previous petitions and settlement considered - Adverse inference for non-appearance of landlady not drawn due to circumstances - Law permits eviction for personal necessity in both residential and non-residential buildings. (Paras 2, 6, 7, 8)
(B) Adverse inference - Court may draw adverse inference only if best evidence is withheld - Non-appearance of landlady through attorney does not warrant automatic inference. (Paras 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, tenants of a shop-cum-flat, were ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority due to the landlady's bona fide requirement for personal use after a previous settlement.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower authorities regarding the genuine necessity of the landlady for the premises.
Issues: The main issues were the interpretation of personal necessity for eviction and the implications of the landlady's representation through an attorney.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the landlady's bona fide requirement justified eviction, and the law allows eviction for personal necessity in both residential and non-residential buildings, with the absence of the landlady not automatically leading to adverse inference.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
The Petitioners herein are the tenants, who have been ordered to be evicted concurrently by the court of Rent Controller, which in appeal, has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The tenanted premises is a shop-cum-flat no.34 Sector 18-D, Chandigarh. The Respondent-landlady is one of the co-owners of the property. Previously, her father and brother filed a petition seeking ejectment of late Sh. Madan Gopal, predecessor of the petitioners herein. The aforesaid petition was allowed on 08.08.2023 by the Rent Controller. Late Sh. Madan Gopal filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, a settlement was arrived at between the parties in December, 2005. It is the case of the petitioners that due to the prolonged litigation, the necessity of her father and brother came to an end and a fresh registered lease deed was executed in favour of late Sh. Madan Gopal for a period of 10 years w.e.f 01.01.2006, which has expired on 31.12.2015. It is her case that she has a bona fide requirement of the premises for her personal use and occupation as she can use the ground floor for opening the business in general trade whereas the first and second floors can be utilized for the residential purposes. The tenants, while contesting the petition, have pleaded that from the very beginning, the landlady's father is pressing hard to increase the rent and in the previous petition also on increase of rent, the matter was compromised. It is stated that this petition has been filed only with the intention of enhancing the rent.
2. The Rent Controller as well as the First Appellate Authority, on appreciation of evidence, have concurrently found that the requirement of the landlady is genuine.
3. Heard the learned senior counsel representing the petitioners at length and with his able assistance perused the paperbook. He has heavily relied upon the pendency of CR-345-2016, which has been referred to the Division Bench for opinion on the following question of law:-
"Whether in the urban area of U.T, Chandigarh, the entire Shop-cum-Flat is to be treated as commercial or in a given case, First & Second Floor thereof could be termed as residential building for the purpose of eviction under the Act of 1949?"
4. It has been stated that in this case, the rented premises is a shop-cum-flat and therefore, the matter should be kept pending.
5. Learned senior counsel further submits that the respondent-landlady has failed to enter the witness box and she appeared through her attorney and therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn for non-appearance of the landlady.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the Petitioners. It may be noted here that the eviction petition in the present case has been filed with respect to the complete Shop-cum-flat including ground floor, first floor and the second floor. There exists a composite tenancy with respect to the complete SCF no.34. In CR-345-2016, the eviction of the tenant was sought from the store/room on the backside of the first floor of SCF no.35. The eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent, change of user and apprehension that the property may be resumed. In that case, the eviction was never sought on the ground of the personal necessity of the landlady. In fact, the identical issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shabir Ahmad v. Sham Lal and others (2002) 3 SCC 118. The judgment passed by the High Court was reversed. After examining the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which is applicable to the area of Chandigarh and the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the Court held that the first floor of the shop-cum-flat is a non-residential building.
7. Still further, it is evident that the eviction which was being sought on the ground of the personal necessity of the landlord/landlady is available with respect to residential as well as non-residential
