KAMLESH RAN RANI v. CR No
Case Details
CR No.3119 of 2015 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 190 KAMLESH RAN RANI Vs CR No.311 Date of De o.3119 of 2015 (O&M) of Decision: 20.05.2025 ......Petitioner ...... PARMA NAND A AND AND ANR ....Respondents ....Re CORAM: HON' ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH ESH MANUJA Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate Present: Mr. for the petitioner. for th Mr. Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. for HARKESH MAN **** MANUJA, J. (Oral) 1. By way of present petition challeng By w hallenge has been laid to the judgme dgment dated 30.03.2015 .2015 passed by the Appellate Autho Authority, whereby the decision date n dated 11.05.2012 rende rendered by the learned Rent Contro Controller, Hoshiarpur stands reverse reversed thereby resulting ulting into dismissal of the eviction iction petition filed at the instance o tance of petitioner-landlad andlady. 2. Briefly stating, the petitioner-landla Brie landlady while claiming herself to b lf to be owner of shop fo hop forming part of three storied bu ied building (hereinafter referred to a ed to as ‘demised shop’) hop’) situated on the Jalandhar Road, Road, Hoshiarpur; based on registere gistered sale deeds dated 2 dated 27.04.1991 and 20.11.1991 soug 1 sought eviction of respondents on th s on the ground of arrears arrears of rent; property being unfit an nfit and unsafe of human habitation ation as well as on the gr the ground of same being required fo ired for bona fide necessity of her so her son namely Sunny Ka ny Kapoor. As per pleadings the tena tenancy started in July, 1988 @ re @ rent of Rs.825/- per m per month. MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.26 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.3119 of 2015 (O&M) 2 3. Upon notice, respondents appeared a Upon ared and filed written statement thereb thereby controverting the ng the pleadings set up by the petition etitioner-landlady while submitting th ting that one of the shop i shop in the building was in occupatio upation of petitioner herself and it wa d it was submitted that dem hat demised premises was fit for huma r human habitation. Further with respe respect to bona fide need need of son of the petitioner-landlady ndlady, it was pleaded that he graduate aduated in the year 2006 6 and passed DJ course from the the ‘Spin Guru’ of Greater Kailas Kailash, New Delhi was was employed; well settled and as nd as such the demised shop was n was not required by him him and as such the need expressed b essed by the petitioner-landlady qua th qua the shop in question stion was not bona fide. With respect espect to arrears of rent, the same we e were tendered before th fore the learned Rent Controller. 4. Based on the pleadings and evidenc Base vidence led by the parties, the learne learned Rent Controller roller vide its decision dated 11.05 11.05.2012 ordered eviction of th of the respondents on t s on the ground of building in ques question being unfit and unsafe fo safe for human habitation itation besides the demised shop being being required by the son of petitione titioner- landlady for his personal use. 5. Aggrieved thereof, respondent No Aggr
Legal Reasoning
nt No.1 filed first appeal before th ore the Appellate Author uthority which came to be allowed v wed vide order dated 30.03.2015 whi 5 while holding that the t the building in question was fit fo fit for human habitation, however ever the bona fide need qu eed qua son of petitioner was not estab t established on record. That is how, th ow, the present petition w ition was filed at the hands of petitione ner-landlady. 6. It may be pointed out here that t It m that the respondents having tendere endered arrears of rent bef ent before the learned Rent Controller troller; the said issue was never agitate agitated by the petitioner ioner-landlady during the first appeal f s ppeal filed by the respondents-tenants 7.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner su Lear ner submits that merely because the so the son of petitioner havi r having graduated besides done DJ ne DJ course from the ‘Spin Guru’ ’ of MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.26 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.3119 of 2015 (O&M) 3 Greater Kailash ilash, New Delhi was employed in a d in and around Chandigarh, the sam he same could not create s reate shadow over the cause set up in up in the eviction petition qua his nee need of the demised sh sed shop. It was further submitted tha ed that by any stretch of imagination, ation, it could not be pres presumed that during pendency of cy of the eviction petition or even ven the appeal/revision p sion petition, son of the petitioner w oner was required to keep waiting for starting his career career and was, thus not supposed to sed to start any job/occupation/vocatio ocation for himself. Lear Learned counsel also submits tha ts that the bona fide need of son o son of petitioner-landlad andlady was to be taken into cons consideration from the prospects o ects of petitioner-landlad andlady and her family only. 7.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner f Lear oner further submits that the Appella ppellate Authority also w went wrong while recording that g that there was no plea set up by th by the petitioner-landlad andlady in her pleadings that the ten the tenanted shop/demised building lding in question was requ as required to be demolished and re-co constructed and as such the plea o plea of bona fide need a need as set up in the pleadings was s was in contradiction to her anoth other plea/ground with with respect to the demised shop shop. In this regard, learned couns counsel submits that onc at once it was specifically pleaded aded in the eviction petition that th that the building in which which the tenanted shop was situated uated had outlived its life and, therefo herefore as a normal con al consequence it was needed to be to be re-constructed once it was g was got vacated by the r the respondents-tenants. It has also as also been submitted that even th ven the findings recorded orded by the Appellate Authority to th to the effect that building in questio question was not unfit an fit and unsafe for human habitation tation was also wrong in the wake o wake of evidence availabl ailable on record. 7.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Lear tioner further submits that in terms o erms of evidence led by t d by the petitioner in the shape of Bu of Building Expert-AW1, who prove proved his report as Ex. as Ex.A-1, the Appellate Authority ority misread and mis-appreciated th ated the MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.26 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.3119 of 2015 (O&M) 4 evidence availabl ailable on record as such the judgme dgment passed by it may kindly be s y be set aside by upholdin holding the judgment passed by the lea the learned Rent Controller. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel On t unsel for respondent No.1 submits th its that the reasoning re ing recorded by the Appellate A ate Authority was based on prop proper appreciation of ev n of evidence and the pleadings availa available on record. He further submi submits that since 2006- -2008, no effort was ever made b ade by the petitioner-landlady to sett settle her son at Hoshia oshiarpur and throughout these years years, he was doing jobs in and aroun around Chandigarh and, and, thus it was apparent that the t the need/necessity expressed by th by the petitioner-landlad andlady was mere her wish. It has a has also been submitted that judici judicial notice could be ta d be taken to the fact that it was alwa s always better to set up a DJ busine business around the capital capital city of Chandigarh rather than r than putting it in Hoshiarpur. No oth o other argument was rais as raised on behalf of respondent No.1 t No.1. 9. I have heard learned counsel for th I hav for the parties and gone through th ugh the paper book. 10. In the present case, though the evi In th he eviction petition was sought at th t at the instance of petiti petitioner-landlady on the ground of und of respondents being in arrears o rears of rent; the building ilding in question having become unfi e unfit and unsafe for human habitatio bitation and the demised ised shop been required for personal rsonal bona fide need of her son. Th n. The learned Rent Con nt Controller, Hoshiarpur ordered evi ed eviction against the respondents o ents on the ground of bu of building in question having beco g become unfit and unsafe for huma human habitation and als nd also for the reason that the petitio petitioner-landlady established the nee he need of demised shop shop for setting up of business/voc ess/vocation of her son. The Appella ppellate Authority, Hoshia Hoshiapur, though reversed the reason reasonings recorded by the learned Re Rent Controller while while holding that the building in qu in question was though fit for huma human MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.26 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.3119 of 2015 (O&M) 5 habitation, howev however, the petitioner-landlady faile y failed to prove her case qua the bon bona fide need of her so f her son, namely, Sunny Kapoor. 11. Having gone through the pleadings Havi adings and the evidence available o able on record, the findin findings recorded by the Appellate ellate Authority to the effect that th that the building in questi question was fit for human habitation itation need no interference as the sam he same are based on appr n appreciation of reports submitted by ted by an Architect-Sh. Rahul Dev Sya ev Syal, who appeared as red as a witness on behalf of respo f respondents-tenant as RW-2 beside besides relying upon the p n the photographs of the building in qu g in question/demised premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner Lear tioner has not been able to point a int any substantial eviden evidence to controvert the findings rec ngs recorded by the Appellate Authori uthority on the aforesaid is said issue and, thus the same are, ther therefore affirmed. 12. In such circumstances, as regards In s egards the findings recorded by th by the Appellate Author uthority on the point of demised sh shop being required by the son o son of petitioner-landlad andlady, the same need to be reversed ersed for the reason that merely the so the son of petitioner grad r graduated in the year 2006 and there thereafter passed out a DJ course fr rse from the institute know known as ‘Spin Guru’ of Greater Kai ter Kailash, New Delhi in the year 200 2007 and thereafter, go got employed in and around Chan d Chandigarh as the petitioner-landlad andlady always intended nded to adjust her son in the Hoshia oshiarpur City only where his paren parents have been residin residing since long. The fact that the s at the son of petitioner was carrying o ying out some job during uring the currency of the eviction p tion petition/appeal/revision cannot b nnot be taken/considered dered against him while dealing with t with the plea of his bona fide necessi ecessity qua the demised mised shop in question as during all g all these years, the son of petition etitioner having attained g ined graduation and possessed with a diploma in DJ was not suppose upposed to keep himself id self idle for long and was, thus always always free to join any vocation / job s / job so as to earn his live is livelihood and, thus it cannot be co considered against him. Moreove oreover, MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.26 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.3119 of 2015 (O&M) 6 the prospects of cts of demised shop required for the for the personal need of the son o son of petitioner-landlad andlady has to be seen and considere sidered from the prospects of landlad andlady and her family on only and not from the eye of respo respondents-tenants. 13. In such circumstances, finding that In su g that the bona fide need of the son o e son of petitioner-landlad andlady was genuine and establishe ablished on record from the conjoi conjoint reading of pleadi pleadings as well as the deposition o ition of the landlady who appeared a eared as AW-2 as well as ell as from the statement of her son- -Sunny Kapoor having appeared a eared as AW-3, the reason reasoning recorded by the Appellate ellate Authority qua the bona fide nee need are hereby reverse reversed and recorded in favour of the of the petitioner-landlady. 14. As an effect of the aforesaid findi As a finding, the judgment passed by th by the Appellate Author uthority is reversed/modified accord accordingly and an order of eviction iction is passed against the nst the respondents–tenants qua the de the demised shop. 15. Disposed off accordingly. Pending Disp nding application(s), if any shall als all also
Decision
sed of. stand disposed of. May 20, 2025 Atik (HARKESH MANUJA) (HA JUDGE Whe Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Whe Yes/N Yes/No Yes/No Yes/N MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.26 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment