ARUN TAYAL Vs. JAGMOHAN CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants are in revision against order of the learned Appellate Authority by which order of the learned Rent Controller has been reversed and they have been asked to vacate the demised premises on account of bonafide necessity of the landlord.

(2.) IN brief, Roshan Lal Chopra was the landlord of the demised premises who had let out its front portion lying towards Nakodar Road to Sita Ram, father of the tenants, who had inherited his tenancy rights after his death and the other portion situated towards eastern side was let out to the tenants. Both the tenancies were created on the same day vide rent note dated 25.11.1988 at the monthly rent of Rs. 8,000/ - and both the portions of the tenancy were joined together with a gallery. Roshan Lal Chopra filed the eviction petition through his General Power of Attorney Chander Mohan Chopra, inter alia, on the grounds of non -payment of rent w.e.f. 01.03.2001 @ Rs. 8,000/ - per month and for bonafide necessity of his son Dr. Jagmohan Chopra (MD) who is running his hospital under the name and style of Chopra Maternity and Nursing Home, near Old District Courts, Ludhiana who wanted to expand it at Jalandhar as well. In reply, the rent note dated 25.11.1988 and the rate of rent was not denied but it was alleged that the rent was offered from November 1999 to 12.03.2001 by way of cheque which was not encashed. Thereafter, the rent was tendered from 01.04.2001 to 31.10.2003 along with interest and costs amounting to Rs. 2,68,300/ - on the first date of hearing, therefore, the issue of non -payment of rent had become redundant. The tenant has alleged that there was no bonafide necessity on the part of the landlord because his son Dr. Jagmohan Chopra is permanently settled at Ludhiana. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Chander Mohan Chopra, General Power of Attorney of the landlord appeared as (AW1), Jagmohan Chopra as (AW2) and Bhagat Singh as (AW3), whereas on the other hand, Deepak Sood appeared as (RW1), Inderjit Singh (RW2) and Yash Tayal (RW3). The learned Rent Controller did not agree with the landlord in respect of his personal necessity, but the learned Appellate Authority had observed that though Dr. Jagmohan Chopra is having his hospital at Ludhiana where he is permanently residing yet he cannot be deprived of his right to start his Nursing Home in another city.

(3.) ON the contrary, learned counsel for the landlord has submitted that the attorney of Roshan Lal Chopra has categorically disclosed phone number of his father as 22756 and though Dr. Jagmohan Chopra has stated that he did not receive any letter from his father, yet he had volunteered that he has been talking on phone with him. In this regard, the learned Appellate Authority has observed that in the present era people are prone to talk on phones then indulging in correspondence and both the sons of the landlord have categorically stated that they have been in touch with their father on telephone who had then required the demised premises for starting a new hospital at Jalandhar by his son who is already a successful doctor at Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the landlord has also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramkubai since deceased by LRs. v. Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak, 1999(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 213 in which the landlady required the demised premises for her son to run Kiryana business but she did not enter the witness box, however, her son supported her claim. In this regard, it was held that there is no ground to conclude that there was no bonafide need of the landlady. In the case of M/s. Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal and Ors., 2005(8) S.C.C. 252, it was held that if the landlord is doing business at place 'A' and wanted to expand it at place 'B', the need of the premises at latter place is found to be bonafide as it is the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature and place of the business for which the tenant cannot advise him. He has also referred to a decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Satpal Vijay Kumar v. Sushil Kumar, 2011(2) RCR (Civil) 82 in which it was held that when eviction is sought on the ground of bonafide need, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the assumption that requirement is not bonafide. If the landlord states that he needs the demised shop for establishment of new business or to extend the business, his need should always be presumed as correct and genuine.