10.03.2025 Ramesh Kuma umar Arora & Others v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
Page 1 of 4 4 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 255 mar Pawan Kumar CR-7432-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.03.2025 Ramesh Kuma umar Arora & Others Vs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- cate Mr. Yogesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present petition has been he en filed by the Tenant against the judgment da y dated 31.08.2018 passed by ity, learned Appellate Authority, l Jalandhar; an and judgment dated 20.03.201 nt .2017 passed by learned Rent Controller, Ja , Jalandhar, where by the evic he eviction petition filed by the landlord/respo espondent no.1 has been allowed b ed by both the Courts below. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Brief facts of the case are rd are thatrespondent no.1/landlord had filed a Pe Petition under Section 13 of the ion the East Punjab Urban Restriction Act (here in af in after referred to as ‘the Act’), aga nd against the petitioner/tenant and two other per persons for eviction from shop form - forming part of property No.403- R, Model Tow Town, Jalandhar/demised premis he emises. It was the case of the landlord that hat Respondent No.2 (Varinder) was in was inducted as tenant in shop in question by fa y father of respondent No.1 on 08. did 08.10.1982. Respondent No.2 did not pay any re ny rent @ Rs.350/- per month since nt since December2006. Respondent No.2 further s er sublet the shop in question to pe .3. o petitioner and respondent No.3. The landlord/ rd/Respondent No.1 required the nd the shop for bona fide need and necessity of hi of his wife to open a beauty parlour file lour. As such, respondent No.1 file the present re nt rent petition. The Respondent N he t No.2 did not appear before the Rent Controll troller and was proceeded ex pa en x parte. Petitioner filed written statement ave averring therein that petitioner m ner took premises on rent from Hakam Rai ( father of respondent No.1), in J of in June 2004 on monthly rent of SUNENA 2025.03.18 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Rs.350/-. No No rent note was executed but r Page 2 of 4 4 (cid:1) till ut rent receipts were issued till 07.12.2005. H 5. Hakam Rai died in 2006 and me and respondent No.1, became landlord. He r He received rent up to June 2009 . 09 but did not issue any receipt. Vide order da r dated 20.03.2017 the learned Ren nt Rent Controller allowed the rent petition of res f respondent no.1 on ground of bon lly bona fide need; and conditionally allowed on g n ground of non-payment of r of of rent holding that if rent of Rs.57,396/- w was paid by the petitioner within er, ithin 2 months from date of order, ejectment on on ground of non-payment of rent, eal ent, would not subsist. The appeal filed by the pe e petitioner was dismissed by the A er he Appellate Authority vide order dated 31.8.201 .2018. 3. Ld. Counsel for the petit aid petitioner assails the above said orders by sub submitting that the petitioner is op r is a tenant in the small shop measuring 7‘ x 7‘ x 8‘ in which the petitioner is ru of running a very small business of selling plastic stic crockery. The petitioner does n s a es not own any property and is a poor person on trying to eke out his living. On th nt n the other hand, the respondent landlord is th s the owner of not only the shop wo hop in dispute, but also has two other much la h larger vacant shops on the first flo re st floor of the very building where the shop in dispute is situated.It is submi - bmitted that the ground of sub- tenancy was r as rejected by both the courts belo ion below. However, the rent petition of the landlor dlord has been allowed on ground his und of bona fide necessity for his wife. Learned ed counsel contends that the said g he aid ground is not made out as, the wife of the la e landlord already has another sho ing r shop from which she is running beauty parlou rlour. The said shop is much larger er, ger and better located. Moreover, as stated ab above, the Landlord has othe ther shops me in the very same building.Ld.co counsel argues that the validity o is ity of the need of the landlord is not made out out from the facts and evidence nt nce on record. The present rent petition is an a an abuse of process of law. Persona ed sonal necessity is not to be treated as a tool to b to be abused.It is reiterated that wo hat the landlord is owner of two other shops lo ps located on the first floor of the ed the building where the demised shop is situate uated. The said two shops are much in uch larger in size than the shop in dispute and a nd are lying vacant. As such, the ely the said shops would completely SUNENA 2025.03.18 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) serve the pur purpose of the landlord. Being in Page 3 of 4 4 (cid:1) ing in the same building and being much larger i er in size, they would suffice in is in every possible manner. It is accordingly pr ly prayed that the impugned orders set ers of the ld. Courts below be set aside, and the the present petition be allowed. 4. 5. great detail. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard ld. counsel in sel and perused the case file in 6. The ground of sub-tenan as nancy raised by the landlordhas been rejected cted by both the courts below - ow as, landlord (PW1) in cross- examination c on conceded that the petitioner wa for r was sitting in shop in dispute for about 12 to 15 to 15 years and Varinder (responden op ndent No.2) was running the shop in front of s of shop in question. The learne tly arned Rent Controller correctly questioned th d that if the petitioner was working ut king in shop in question for about 12 to 15 yea years then why landlord slept he pt in long slumber.Further, the allegedRent n nt note (Ex.P1) between Hakam Ra .1) Rai (father of respondent No.1) and Varinder ( der (respondent No.2) produced by in by PW1, was neither executed in his presence ce nor was signed in his presenc sis sence.Thus, merely on the basis ofEx.P1 it wou would not be held that any tenancy nt ancy existed between respondent No.2 (Varinde inder) and Hakam Rai and determ - termine that petitioner was sub- tenant. PW1 in 1 in cross-examination further con if conceded that he did not know if Hakam Rai issued receipt to the petitione re, ioner on 07.12.2005. Therefore, landlord was as not certain that petitioner wa ed was not tenant in the demised shop. 7. Be that as it may, now com as coming to the issue at hand, it has been contend tended by the petitioner that the he the landlord has no need of the demised prem remises as he has two other vacan ng, acant shops in the same building, which are mu much larger and would suffice for t is for the purpose required that is running of be f beauty parlour by wife of the lan he e landlord. I find no merit in the submissions m ns made on behalf of the petitione no tioner. First and foremost, it is no longer res Inte Integra that landlord is the best ju it st judge of his requirement, and it is not for the t he tenant/petitioner hearing in to d to dictate terms to the landlord. SUNENA 2025.03.18 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 8. It has been submitted by Page 4 of 4 4 (cid:1) op by the petitioner that the shop situated at Da t Dada Nagar already with the wife as wife of the respondent No.1 was adequate and and shop in question was too sm No small to run beauty parlour. No doubt, the dim e dimensions of the shop in quest he uestion may be smaller than the shop at Dada ada Nagar which is already in po he n possession of the wife of the landlord. How owever, the suitability and conveni he venience have to be judged by the landlord. Adm Admittedly, the shop at Dada Nagar om agar is also at some distance from the demised sed premises. Further, the land at landlord/PW1 has testified that tenanted shop shop in question is part and parcel is rcel of his residence and same is required by hi y his wife for opening up her beaut ing eauty parlour in it as she is finding it difficult to l to look after their children because to ause of inconvenience of going to aforesaid parl parlour at Dada Nagar. The above by ove said facts were reiterated by wife of the lan e landlord, namely Kavita Arora in h is in her testimony as PW2. There is nothing on r n record to dispute or shake t his ke the creditworthiness of this testimony. 9. As regards the contentio he ntion of the petitioner that the landlord has has two other vacant shops in aid in the same building, the said argument is without basis. As per the is of he uncontroverted evidence of PW2/Kavita A ta Arora/wife of the landlord, she h er he has categorically replied in her cross-examina ination dated 29.2.2016, that the ad the other two vacant shops had fallen to the s he share of the brother of her husb d , usband Ramesh Kumar/landlord , and only one one shop had fallen to the sha sh share of her husband Ramesh Kumar/landlor dlord. 10. Ld. counsel for the petiti or etitioner is unable to dispute or deny the afore foresaid facts and findings. 11. 12.
Decision
In view of the above, prese resent petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. 10.03.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: SUNENA 2025.03.18 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Yes/No Yes/No (cid:1)