AT CHANDIGARH v. Smt.Raj Rani Sharma & Anr.

The parties went to trial on the following issues:-

1. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected from the property in dispute on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent including house tax etc. as alleged?OPP

2. Whether the respondents are entitled for the counter claim as alleged?OPR

3. Relief. After appraisal of evidence led by the parties, the Rent Controller found that the rate of rent was Rs.10,000/- per month; that the C.R.No.3893 of 2010 -3- .... petitioners were in arrears of rent; that the demised premises was required by the landlord for own personal use and occupation and consequently, accepted the eviction petition. In appeal, the findings of the Rent Controller were affirmed by the Appellate Authority resulting in the filing of the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the landlady herself did not appear in the witness-box, it could not be said that the personal necessity as pleaded by her had been proved. He further contended that the need of the landlady cannot be termed to be bona fide as one of her sons,namely, Pardeep Kumar Vashistha, is doing private job at Delhi and is having a house in Gaziabad and has no experience in handloom products. He submitted that in view of this the need of the landlady is far fetched to say that the demised premises is required for own use and occupation. It was further submitted that the rate of rent as determined by the Courts below is also erroneous and in fact, the same was Rs.6381.58 per month. In view of his submissions, he prayed that the impugned judgments be set aside. I have thoughtfully considered the contentions/ submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the findings recorded by the Courts below. It has been found as a matter of fact that the rate of rent was Rs.10,000/- per month and one of the factors which weighed with the Courts below was that there is evidence to show that the petitioners had C.R.No.3893 of 2010 -4- .... issued four cheques each of Rs.10,000/- and had given to the landlady which amount was to be adjusted towards the rent. There was no material on record from where it could be inferred that the rate of rent was less than that. The petitioners have not been able to prove by any cogent evidence on record that Rs.6381.75 was the rate of rent. Therefore, the findings of the Courts on this issue cannot be interfered with. In so far as the personal necessity of the landlady is concerned, her three sons have appeared as witnesses. PW1-R.K.Vashistha, PW2- Pardeep Kumar Vashistha and PW3-Arun Vashistha testified that they require the premises for the purposes which were out in the eviction petition. In view of this, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the landlady did not appear in the witness box, the personal necessity was not proved, does not have any merit. In Ajit Singh and another Versus Jit Ram and another, (2008) 9 S.C.C. 699, the Supreme Court held as under:- “When the demises shop is sought to be vacated on the ground of the landlord's son's requirement, in the eviction petition, the son must plead that he was not occupying any other building and that he had not vacated an occupied building without sufficient cause. In the present case, it was pleaded and proved that the demised shop was required by the son. Therefore, the pleadings of the son in regard to the aforesaid mandatory requirements were satisfied. A non-residential premises, if required by a son for user by him would cover the requirement C.R.No.3893 of 2010 -5- .... of the words used in the section i.e. “for his own use” in reference to a landlord. ..........” As mentioned above, all the three sons have stepped into witness box and deposed that they required the demised premises for their personal use. The petitioners have not been able to dislodge the claim of the sons of the landlady. Therefore, the law laid down in the aforementioned case is applicable to the instant case and the petitioners are liable to be evicted from the demised premises. On the basis of the above discussion, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.No.15139- CII of 2010 which has been moved for staying the dispossession of the petitioners is also dismissed. However, the petitioners are allowed one year' time to hand over the physical vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlady subject to their furnishing of an undertaking within three weeks from today before the Rent Controller in the following terms:-

1. That they shall hand over physical vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlady on or before 4.7.2011.

2. That they shall pay all arrears of rent up to date to the landlady within two months.

3. That they shall continue to make payment of rent at the agreed rate till the physical vacant possession of the demised premises is handed over to the landlady.

4. That they shall not commit any default in payment of arrears of rent or the monthly rent and that even a single default will C.R.No.3893 of 2010 -6- .... disentitle them to the benefit of this order.

5. That if the arrears of rent or the monthly rent is not paid as aforesaid, the landlady shall be entitled to execute the eviction order forthwith.

6. That the physical vacant possession of the demised premises shall be handed over to the landlady in the condition as it is.

7. That if they make an attempt to deviate from the undertaking, the landlady shall be entitled to apprise the Rent Controller, who shall proceed to get the demised premises vacated and to hand over the physical vacant possession thereof to her by granting police assistance. July 05,2010 “SCM” ( Mahesh Grover ) Judge