Bansi Lal v. Om Parkash Aggarwal

Judgment

3. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? To be referred to reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. S.S. Bains, Advocate, for the respondent. Alok Singh, J. CR No. 2233 of 2010 2 Landlord – revisionist has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the judgment dated 01.03.2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, as well as, judgment dated 17.02.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. Revisionist – landlord has filed eviction petition against the tenant, inter-alia, contending therein that tenant is in arrears of rent; earlier the children of the landlord were staying in Amritsar and now upon his transfer to Chandigarh, he has to shift his family at Chandigarh; because of non- availability of any accommodation at Chandigarh or nearby place, he is temporarily residing in Ambala; landlord has no other accommodation except the demised premises in Chandigarh; tenant has also changed the internal structure of the premises and has diminished the value and utility of the premises and has done material alterations in violation of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter without the consent of the landlord – petitioner. Tenant – respondent contested the eviction petition. Both the Courts below have found that tenant has tendered the outstanding arrears of rent till 31.01.2007 along with interest and cost as assessed by the Rent Controller, hence, ground of arrears of rent is not available. Both the Courts CR No. 2233 of 2010 3 below further found that landlord could not prove that tenant has made any material alterations and has diminished the value and utility of the premises. Both the Courts below further found that landlord has stepped into the witness box as PW1; On 01.02.2006, he was cross-examined in length, however, the cross-examination was not complete and it was deferred and thereafter, the petitioner – landlord did not submit himself for conclusion of his remaining cross- examination, hence, need of the petitioner – landlord cannot be said to be bona fide. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner – landlord vehemently argued that landlord, who was working with United News of India, was transferred to Chandigarh on

22.12.2003 and has joined Chandigarh on 01.01.2004 and his transfer order dated 22.12.2003 was duly proved by Mr. Dinesh Bhardwaj, Supervisor, United News of India, by appearing in the witness box, who was cross-examined at length by the tenant. Learned counsel for the landlord further stated that even if landlord failed to appear for the remaining cross-examination, the fact remains that landlord was working with United News of India and stood transferred to Chandigarh vide order dated 22.12.2003 and now, petitioner – landlord is going to retire on 31.10.2010, hence, after CR No. 2233 of 2010 4 retirement, he needs residential accommodation owned by him in the City of Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that if landlord has failed to appear in the witness box for remaining cross-examination, then view taken by both the Courts below by not relying upon the statement of the landlord is correct. On being asked by this Court, learned counsel for the respondent – tenant could not dispute that landlord is working with United News of India and he is now posted in Chandigarh. Landlord has filed certificate before this Court as Annexure A-1 with the revision petition to show that he is going to retire on 31.10.2010. Be at the case may be, fact remains landlord is now posted at Chandigarh, he is alleging that he would like to stay in his own house i.e. demised premises. In the opinion of this Court, every landlord has every right to stay in his own house, tenant cannot compel the landlord to keep on staying in Ambala and do not come to his own house. The Apex Court in Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in 1998(8) SCC 119, in paragraph 14 while interpreting the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, has held as under: - “When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller CR No. 2233 of 2010 5 shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord in bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.” In the opinion of this Court, the moment landlord is able to prove prima facie bona fide need, then Rent Controller shall proceed presuming the bona fide need of the landlord as genuine and now the onus shift on the tenant to disprove the alleged need of the landlord. Technically, this is correct if a witness is not cross-examined completely, his statement cannot be relied upon, however, fact remains that landlord stood transferred to Chandigarh and has joined Chandigarh on 01.01.2004 and is now working in Chandigarh, which is not disputed by the tenant, hence, in the opinion of this Court, landlord’s need is genuine and bona fide. Eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide should not be refused CR No. 2233 of 2010 6 taking hyper-technical views. Learned counsel for the tenant argued that after getting the demised accommodation vacated, landlord will not reside therein. Apprehension of the tenant is misconceived. This Court in the matter of Balbir Kaur and others vs. Roop Lal and others in Civil Revision No. 3105 of 2010 decided on 23.08.2010 has observed as under:- “Mr. Jain further argued that after getting the demise premises vacated, landlords will not start business therein and shall alienate the property or let it out at exorbitant rent. Apprehension of the argument of the learned counsel for the tenant seems to be misconceived in view of Section 13(4) of the Act. To appreciate the argument of Mr. Jain, learned senior advocate, this Court would like to reproduce Section 13(4) of the Act, which reads as under: - “13(4) Where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building or rented land in pursuance of an order under subparagraph (i) or subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (3) does not himself occupy it or, if possession was obtained by him for his family in pursuance of an order under sub-paragraph (i-a) of paragraph (a) of sub-section (3), his CR No. 2233 of 2010 7 family does not occupy the residential building, or, if possession was obtained by him on behalf of his son in pursuance of an order under subparagraph (iv) of paragraph (a) of sub- section (3), his son does not occupy it for the purpose for which possession was obtained, for a continuous period of twelve months from the date of obtaining possession or where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building under sub-paragraph (iii) of the aforesaid paragraph (a) puts that building to any use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of such building or rented land and the Controller shall make an order accordingly.” From the perusal of sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, it is clear that safeguard is provided by the legislature, if landlord or his family for whose benefit eviction was obtained, fails to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months from the date of obtaining possession or where he puts that building to any use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order and CR No. 2233 of 2010 8 direction that he shall be restored to possession of such building. In the opinion of this Court, tenant has legal remedy available with him under Section 13(4) of the Act, in case landlords do not occupy the building for the purpose for which it was got vacated or alienate it or lease it out as apprehended by Mr. Arun Jain, learned senior advocate. In view of Section 13(4) of the Act, need alleged by the landlords must be presumed to be correct and genuine, unless of course, proved otherwise. In the present case, tenant could not prove that the need of the landlords is not genuine. Rather, on the basis of the apprehension, tenant is denying need of the landlords and that apprehension is baseless as discussed hereinabove.” In the opinion of this Court, landlord’s need is proved on record and tenant has failed to disprove it, hence, present petition deserved to be allowed. Petition is allowed. Impugned judgments are quashed. Eviction petition filed by the landlord stands allowed. However, in the interest of justice, two months’ time is granted to the tenant to handover peaceful vacant possession to the landlord – petitioner. October 05, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) Judge CR No. 2233 of 2010 9