Om Parkash v. Guru Dutt Bakshi

Present: Mr. S.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent S. D. ANAND, J. The respondent-landlord applied for the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on an averment that the latter is in arrears of rent for the indicated period and also on an averment of personal necessity. There also was an averment that the petitioner-tenant had rendered himself liable to eviction as he had changed the user of the premises aforementioned. In the context of the plea qua personal necessity, the averment made was that premises are required for utilisation thereof by the elder son of landlord who (elder son) has resumed his legal practice at Karnal. The learned Rent Controller negatived the plea regarding change of user and also personal necessity. The plea regarding the petitioner-tenant being in arrears of rent also ceased to be available, Civil Revision No. 5436 of 2008 2 ****** as a plea for eviction, as the arrears of rent came to be paid up. In appeal, however, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding on point of personal necessity and recorded a finding upholding the plea raised by the respondent-landlord. There was no controversy about the payment of rent and the change of user before the learned Appellate Authority. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-landlord, argued with vehemence that the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority upholding the claim for personal bonafide necessity raised by the landlord deserves to be invalidated for the simple reason that there is plethora of evidence on record to prove that the office accommodation available with him is adequate and that he does not have enough briefs which would require a higher in-flow of clients for the purpose of consultation. In support of that view, the learned counsel relied upon the statements of RW- 3 Raj Kumar, RW-4 Vinod Kumar, RW-5 B.R.Luthra, RW-6 Sham Lal Wadhwa, RW-7 R.D.Gupta, RW-8 Inderjeet and RW-9 Anil Kumar Bhasin. Insofaras the RW-5 to RW-9 are concerned, they all are officers in the employment of various banks (RW-5 B.R.Luthra, Senior Manager, Central Bank, Karnal, RW-6 Sham Lal Wadhwa, an official the Punjab National Bank, Karnal RW-7 R.D.Gupta,Assistant Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Karnal RW-8 Inderjeet, Official of the Bank of Baroda, Karnal and RW-9 Anil Kumar Bhasin, an Officer from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Karnal). All of them, with exception of RW-6 Sham Lal Wadhwa and Civil Revision No. 5436 of 2008 3 ****** RW-8 Inderjeet, testified that the indicated (meagre) number of cases were entrusted to the respondent-landlord during the relevant period. RW-6- Sham Lal Wadhwa stated that the respondent- landlord is no longer on the panel of (bank) Advocates after the year 2008; while RW-8 Inderjeet testified that the respondent-landlord was on the panel of the bank lawyers for the period 2000-2004 during which two cases were entrusted to him. The tenor of his testimony would justify an inference that the respondent-landlord is no longer on the panel of that bank. Insofar as the RW-3 Raj Kumar and RW-4 Vinod Kumar are concerned, they were examined to prove that the office accommodation presently available with the respondent-landlord is sufficient. Likewise, RW-14 Raj Kumar, Civil Ahlmad was examined at the trial to prove Ex. RW-14/A, a list of the appeals which were filed through the respondent-landlord during the period 2000 to 20004. Likewise, RW-15 Multan Singh was examined to prove list Ex. RW15/A which enumerates the cases filed by the respondent-landlord and his son Vikas Bakshi during the period 2000-2004. In short, the petitioner-tenant wanted to prove that the respondent-landlord does not have many briefs to handle and, on that account, he does not require any larger office accommodation. The plea raised is denuded of merit. The number of briefs held by a counsel cannot, by any stretch of interpretation, be taken into consideration while adjudicating upon the claim raised by him for the requirement of additional accommodation for office use. The respondent-landlord is proved on record to be a second Civil Revision No. 5436 of 2008 4 ****** generation of lawyer inasmuch as there is material available on record to the effect that his late father Sh. Ram Saran Dass was also a practicing Advocate. It is in the petition itself that the respondent- landlord is a practicing Advocate since the year 1968. There is evidence, in the statement of respondent-landlord and his son Vikas Bakshi, to the effect that former has two married daughters who visit their natal house off and on. It is also in evidence that an aged and unwell mother of respondent-landlord is also putting up with him. There is no guest room in the house. There is no study room either in that accommodation. Two other sons of respondent-landlord are elsewhere (one son of his in service; while the 3rd son is studying for graduation). That part of the testimony has been appropriately appreciated by the learned Appellate Authority to record a finding upholding the claim for ejectment raised by the respondent-landlord. The learned Appellate Authority negatived the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that the respondent-landlord did not have any necessity for additional accommodation inasmuch as he was dealing only with the bank cases and he would meet the bank officials either in the bank or in the District Court. The real practice of an Advocate of that standing cannot be judged by the number of briefs entrusted to him by the various banks and institutions. The extent of real practice could be quantified by obtaining on record the law diary of the learned counsel which only could indicate the total number of briefs being handled by him. The needful was not done in the present case. Even Civil Revision No. 5436 of 2008 5 ****** otherwise, there is no warrant for the expounded proposition that the number of briefs handled by a practicing Advocate will be a determinative factor for adjudicating upon a plea of personal necessity raised by him; particularly when he has been joined in legal practice by his son who has the proverbial miles to go and the proved entreatment of briefs to his landlord/father cannot be said to be sufficient to outweigh his need for independent office accommodation. I find no reason to differ with the findings and also the reasoning recorded by the learned Appellate Authority. It is to state the obvious that an additional accommodation would always facilitate the furnishing thereof by the landlord and the presentation of a well furnished office does give out a good impression about an Advocate who is being visited by the clients for the purpose of consultation. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner- tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. May 25, 2010 Pka (S. D. ANAND) JUDGE