MAQSOOD AHMED Vs. AJAY SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) In brief, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] in respect of shop No. 1854, near Smadhi Gate, Main Bazar, Manimajra, Chandigarh which was purchased by him on 08.03.2004 and was in occupation of the tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 250/- besides water and electricity charges. The landlord prayed for eviction of the tenant, inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent from March, 2004 @ Rs. 250/- per month and his personal necessity. It was alleged that he himself is in occupation of a tenanted premises in Sector-25, Panchkula where he is doing the business of property dealing under the name and style of M/s. R.P. Sharma Property Consultants. In reply, besides denying his status of landlord and ownership, the tenant alleged that the landlord is doing the business of clothes along with his father in shop No. 145, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra and has recently constructed a showroom near Rana Haveli, Manimajra which is a three storey building and is in occupation of the landlord and his father. It was denied that the landlord is running his business in Sector-25, Panchkula. In view of the aforesaid pleadings, issues were framed on 10.03.2006 and in order to substantiate their respective case, the landlord examined Suraj Bhaj (PW1), Gurmukh Singh (PW2), Ram Murti (PW3) and Rajinder Parshad (PW4), whereas the tenant examined Ramesh Kumar (RW1), Vakil Chand (RW2) and himself as (RW3). Insofar as the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent is concerned, it had become redundant as the rent was tendered by the tenant as assessed by the learned Rent Controller on 31.01.2006, but both the Courts below expressed their different opinion on the issue of personal necessity of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller had observed that the landlord has failed to bring on record material to show that he has been doing the business of property dealing, therefore, he cannot ask the tenant to vacate the demised premises for the said purpose and that he has been in business with his father at shop No. 145, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra. On the contrary, learned Appellate Authority has found that shop No. 145, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra is in possession of Rajinder Parshad Sharma, father of the landlord, who is the sole proprietor of the firm M/s. Sharma Emporium since 1997 which is evident from the sale deed dated 08.07.1997 Ex. PW4/1 and the landlord has no concern with the said business. It was also observed that showroom near Rana Haveli, Manimajra is in the name of Sandeep Sharma, brother of the landlord which is clear from the sale deed Ex. PW2/2 and the demised premises is the only property owned by the landlord which is apparent from document Ex.PW1/A. The learned Appellate Authority had also found that the landlord had brought on record original rent note of his tenanted premises of Sector-25, Panchkula which was taken on rent on 15.02.2005, two months prior to the filing of the eviction petition, from which it was found by the learned Appellate Authority that the landlord was in dire need of the tenanted premises for the purpose of running his own business.

(3.) Assailing order of the Appellate Authority, learned counsel for the tenant has argued that the case set up by the landlord is that he is in possession of a tenanted premises before filing of the eviction petition, therefore, in terms of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. Atma Devi and others,1985 PLR 751, he does not satisfy the sub-clause (b) of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act because the Full Bench has held that "for seeing the occupation of landlord for purposes of sub-clause (b) of Section 13(3)(a)(i) only possession as of right whether as owner, landlord, tenant, mortgagee with possession or in any other form, recognized by law, has to be taken into consideration. The sole basis of enacting sub-clause (b) was that if the landlord is occupying any other residential building in his own right, that is possession recognized by law, then he could not claim eviction from another building. By no stretch of reasoning the words "another building" can be interpreted to mean that the building in occupation of the landlord must be his own or that he must hold that building in the same character which he claims qua the building from which the ejectment of the tenant is sought". It is also argued that the landlord is working with his father in shop No. 145, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra and has not placed on record any material to show that he has been doing the business of property dealing, therefore, his claim that he requires the demised premises for running the business of property dealing is only a ploy to seek eviction of the tenant.