Chaman Lal v. Chander Bhan Bansal

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioner-tenant is in revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (as applicable to Chandigarh) assailing the order dated 30.9.2009 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby he has been ordered to be evicted on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord from the demised Cabin No.8; and the judgment and order dated 9.8.2012 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh whereby the findings have been affirmed in appeal. Facts in brief are that the respondent-Chander Bhan Bansal (hereinafter to be referred as “the landlord”) was leased out the entire Basement of SCO No.47-48, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh by the owner- Mendor Singh vide registered Lease deed dated 7.7.2001 with C.R No.5269 of 2012 #2# permission to sublet any portion of the Basement.

Present petitioner was inducted as a sub-tenant and continued to be as such on payment of Rs.900/- to Chander Bhan Bansal. Thus, Chander Bhan Bansal admittedly became the landlord of the present petitioner/sub-tenant, who on 10.4.2007 filed the Rent Application seeking eviction of the petitioner/sub-tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent with effect from September 2006 and also on the ground of personal necessity. It was claimed that the landlord was doing business of Wholesale and Retail dealing in Cloths on the first floor of SCO No.47-48 along with his two grown up sons and for the expansion of his business, he needed the Basement. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and on evaluation of the evidence adduced, learned Rent Controller vide order dated 30.9.2009 ordered the eviction of the petitioner/sub-tenant on the ground of personal necessity alone. Learned Appellate Court upheld the findings in the appeal filed by the petitioner/Sub-tenant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/sub-tenant has argued that subsequently the original owners have sold the entire Basement to one Vijay Jain and Mahender Jain, who have in the year 2012, filed an eviction petition against the present petitioner/sub-tenant before the learned Rent Controller and thus the present landlord has no right to maintain the present eviction proceedings. C.R No.5269 of 2012 #3# After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, I find no force in the arguments raised by learned counsel and the same is devoid of any merit. It is not in dispute that it was Chander Bhan Bansal in view of subsequent permission in the lease deed dated 7.7.2001 executed by owner of the building, had become the landlord of the petitioner/sub tenant. It is also not in dispute that the landlord is engaged in the business of Wholesale and Retail of clothes. It is also not in dispute that he has two grown up children, who are also engaged in the same business.

This court is in agreement with the findings recorded by both the courts below whereby it is settled that seeking eviction of any tenanted premises required for expansion of the business constitutes bonafide basis. The argument that the Basement has been sold to M/s Vijay etc would not make any difference qua the status of the petitioner/sub tenant in relation to his landlord. Dismissed. September 10, 2012 ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE