Dwarka Dass v. Surinder Pal

Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kanwalveer Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondent. ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner argued that landlord-respondent had filed two eviction petitions under Section 13-B of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) against two tenants seeking eviction of the tenants on the ground of personal need to start the business of readymade garments in the shops in question. According to Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate, landlord has not pleaded C.R. No.383 of 2007 (O&M) -2- that he would start garment business in both the shops after removing wall converting two shops into one showroom, hence, he is not entitled to seek eviction of the petitioner in view of the fact that his alleged needs stands satisfied in view of the eviction order passed pertaining to the another shop in the tenancy of Gulzari Lal. To appreciate the argument advanced by learned Senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, the brief facts of the case are required to be mentioned herein.

2. That landlord claiming himself to be NRI had filed two separate eviction petitions, one against the present petitioner-tenant and another against Mr. Gulzari Lal, tenant; In both the eviction petition, landlord has taken plea that he wants to settle in India after coming back from the England and wants to reside in the building in the back of the shops in question and wants to start readymade garments business in the shops in question; In both the cases, eviction orders were passed, however, case of Gulzari Lal was decided earlier point of time vide order dated 2.12.2006; During the pendency of the Civil Revision No.128/2007 filed by Gulzari Lal petitioner’s eviction order in the present case was also passed on

15.12.2006.

3. In the revision petition filed by Gulzari Lal arguments were advanced on behalf of Gulzari Lal that in view of the eviction order being passed against the Dwarka Dass, the present petitioner, need of the landlord stands satisfied and two applications for the C.R. No.383 of 2007 (O&M) -3- same need are not maintainable. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Revision No.128/2007 filed by Gulzari Lal in judgment dated

23.1.2007 has observed as under:- “Learned counsel has next argued, rely- ing upon another ejectment order dated De- cember 15,2006 (Annexure P/3 with the appli- cation), that the landlord has already got an ejectment order in his favour against another tenant, Dwarka Dass, and as such the ground of being a specified landlord was no more available to the landlord after an ejectment or- der had been passed qua another shop. Even the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. Firstly, the present ejectment order against the ten- ant-petitioner has been passed on December 2, 2006. At that point of time there was no ejectment order passed against any other tenant. Even otherwise, I find that as per ob- servations made in the impugned order itself, there are two shops in a larger building. The present tenant is occupying one of the shops. In these circumstances, the landlord is enti- tled to seek ejectment of both the tenants, from the two shops, which form part of a a larger building, to meet his own requirement. In this view, I am supported by two judgments of this court in M/s.Bhandari General Store and another V. Makhan Singh Grewal 2006(1) RCR 307 and Harbhajan Singh V. Gurdial Singh 2006(1) RCR 436. C.R. No.383 of 2007 (O&M) -4- No other point has been urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed.”

4. Order of this Court in C.R. No.128/2007 was challenged before the Apex Court, however, SLP was dismissed. In view of the judgment passed by this Court in C.R. No.128/2007, I find no reason to take contrary view. Even otherwise, Apex Court in the matter of Zenobia Bhanot vs. P.K. Vasudeva and another reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 601 has observed as under:- “The option so given to the landlord by the concluding words in the opening clause of Section 13A, in cases where the building is let out in part or parts, either to recover the whole building or to recover in part or parts thereof is reinforced by the second proviso. By no stretch of reasoning, the second pro- viso to Section 13A can be construed as nulli- fying the main provision of Section 13A and, in particular, the concluding words in the opening clause of Section 13A whereby the option is given to the landlord to recover the possession of residential building itself or any part or parts thereof in cases where the build- ing is let out in part or parts.”

5. I am of the opinion that separate applications against the separate tenants occupying different portions of the same building are maintainable. In both the eviction petitions, petitioner landlord C.R. No.383 of 2007 (O&M) -5- has specifically taken the plea that after returning from England he has to establish his garments business in the property in dispute. That need was upheld by the learned Rent Controller and there is no perversity or illegality in the judgment passed by the learned Rent Controller. No other point is raised by learned Senior Advocate ap- pearing for the petitioner.

6. This revision petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dis- missed.

7. Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate on instruction states that peti- tioner-tenant shall vacate the disputed premises on or before

31.12.2010. In view of the statement of learned Senior Advocate, eviction order shall not be executed against the tenant-petitioner till

31.12.2010.

8. Petitioner-tenant shall furnish usual undertaking before concerned learned Rent Controller within two weeks from today. However, it is made clear that in the event of non-furnishing of the undertaking by the petitioner-tenant, eviction order shall be executed forthwith. 29th June, 2010 ashish ( ALOK SINGH ) JUDGE