Bir Bahadur v. Prikshat Kumar

rendered redundant and consequently the parties went to trial on the sole issue whether the respondent was in bona fide need of the demised premises or not. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority returned the findings in favour of the respondent and ordered the eviction of the petitioner which has resulted in the filing C.R.No.7985 of 2010 (O&M) -3- of the present petition with a grouse that the findings recorded by the Courts below are erroneous and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner with much vehemence has referred to the evidence to plead that the respondent was never a resident of Hoshiarpur and that he was residing in Ludhiana and his son was settled in Delhi and the respondent himself was sometimes residing with him. He further contended that looking at these facts it cannot be conceived that the respondent was in the need of the demised premises. He next contended that even otherwise he has no knowledge of the trade of electrical goods and thus the need as expressed by the landlord was merely a ploy to seek his eviction and was not a bona fide one. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material on record. It was specifically averred by the respondent-landlord that he requires the premises after his retirement to set up a shop of electrical goods along with his son. It has also come in evidence that the petitioner has since retired and his son was merely earning Rs.1,000/- per month. The need of the respondent in the backdrop of these two facts cannot be termed to be imaginary or mala fide as has been sought to be projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A landlord is always the best judge of his needs and if he requires the premises for setting up the business after his retirement, it cannot be assumed that such a need necessarily has to be viewed with a tint of suspicion. The Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India C.R.No.7985 of 2010 (O&M) -4- Insurance Company Ltd. 1998(2) RCR 533, made the following observations : “14. The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms of the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.” In Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary and Co. AIR 2000 Supreme Court 534 it has been observed as under :- “...It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter...” Similarly, in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co.Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal and others (2005) 8 SCC 252 C.R.No.7985 of 2010 (O&M) -5- following observations are made :- “.......It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad therefore, it is not genuine need. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business......” For he aforesaid reasons, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law. The next argument which has been raised that the respondent had no knowledge of the trade of electrical goods is also without any substance. It is not necessary for a landlord to prove his credentials in a particular trade if he wants to set up a shop. It is entirely his look out as to for what purpose and how the demised premises are to be used. The tenant cannot question the landlord on such aspects of the intended use. Especially a landlord who is on the verge of retirement has every right to look for a venture which will keep him occupied and will give him returns in life and for the said purpose if he expresses the need to utilise the demised premises, such a need has to be appreciated affirmatively and not with a questioning intent. No other point has been urged. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition which C.R.No.7985 of 2010 (O&M) -6- deserves to be dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has instructions from his client that he will not press the present petition in the eventuality of some time being granted to him to vacate the demised premises and that he is willing to furnish an undertaking regarding handing over of vacant physical possession of the premises to the respondent within a stipulated time frame. On due consideration of this request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to accept the same for the reason that the petitioner has been carrying on commercial activities in the demised premises since long and his livelihood is likely to be affected in the event of his being evicted from the premises. Having regard to the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of with the following observations :- i) That the petitioner shall furnish an affidavit before the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur within a period of three weeks from today undertaking to vacate the premises in question and hand over the physical possession of the premises to the respondent on 1.12.2011. ii) That the petitioner shall restore the possession of the premises in question to the respondent without damage to the property and he shall not make any alteration or addition to the property and also continue to pay the rent at the agreed rate by the 7th of each month and shall also pay all the arrears, if any, on account of rent or any other terms of the tenancy while C.R.No.7985 of 2010 (O&M) -7- furnishing the undertaking. iii) That the petitioner shall be bound by the undertaking and any violation thereof shall invite automatic execution of the order of eviction by which the Executing Court on its being apprised of such violation shall order appropriate help including police help to retrieve the possession by the respondent.

8.12.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE