In rent control proceedings, the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction does not permit acting as a second appellate court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding personal necessity and subletting, unless the lower courts' findings are proved to be perverse or contrary to law.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

1. The tenant and the alleged sub-tenant are in revision against the concurrent finding of fact.

INDEX

CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION

2. Challenged in the present revision petition is to the judgment dated 07.12.2016 vide which the Rent Controller has ordered the eviction of the petitioners from the premises in question i.e. portion of the ground floor, S.C.F. No.36, Sector 28-C, Chandigarh measuring 26’-3” x 4’-4½” on the ground of personal necessary and subletting. Challenge is also to the judgment dated 21.01.2023 vide which the appeal filed by the present petitioners was dismissed and eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement as well as sub letting was upheld.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the ground of personal necessity is not made out, inasmuch as, out of the three respondents, who had filed the eviction petition, two respondents i.e., respondents no.1 and 3 have died and thus, it cannot be said that the necessity for the premises is still existing. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, the findings of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority evicting the petitioners on the ground of personal necessity deserves to be reversed. It is further submitted that even the ground of sub letting is not made out, inasmuch as, petitioner no.1 was the initial tenant in the premises and thereafter in the year 1981, petitioner no.2 was inducted as a tenant in December, 1981 by the now deceased Krishan Lal Sahni and the said tenancy was an oral tenancy. It is submitted that the said important aspect has not been considered by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, resulting in a perverse finding, which deserves to be set aside.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2

4. Learned senior counsel for respondent no.2, on the other hand, has submitted that the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, have concurrently found that both the grounds for personal necessity and subletting are made out and thus, this Court in revisional jurisdiction, as per settled law, should not interfere in the concurrent finding of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority. It is further submitted that as far as the plea of bonafide requirement is concerned, the respondents have been able to establish the said plea which is for expansion of business of all the respondents including respondent no.2, who is admittedly alive and is running his business in the other part of the shop in question. With respect to the ground of subletting, it is submitted that the rent note exhibited as Ex.P1, in the present case is in favour of petitioner no.1 i.e., Rattan Lal and thus, it is proved beyond doubt that it is the said Rattan Lal who was the only tenant in the premises. It is submitted that premises were never let out to petitioner no.2 Parkash Saini and the plea taken by the petitioners to the effect that there was oral tenancy in December 1981 is not even remotely proved. It is submitted that in the year 1981 Parkash Saini was a minor and thus the question of his running business is highly improbable. It is further submitted that even as per the case of the petitioners, it is petitioner no.2 is in occupation of the entire premises and the petitioner no.1 is con