RATTAN DEVI Vs. PARGAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is in revisions against the orders of dismissal of the petitions for eviction founded on non-payment of rent and for personal necessity of the landlord's son to start business. The petitioner had stated that there was one shop in his occupation, which he was himself running and the property was necessary for starting business for his son. In the course of evidence, it was elicited from the petitioner that there were 4 shops, out of which 2 were vacant. The Rent Controller as well as the appellate Court found that when the landlord had himself in his occupation vacant buildings, he was not entitled to obtain eviction. There are also other grounds stated in the orders passed by the authorities below that the landlord was requiring the premises for setting up a shop for an engineer. The Rent Controller found among other reasons that the son was not unmarried and, therefore, the relevant provisions would not apply. He also observed that if at all, the personal necessity could be only for setting up an office for a lawyer. Both these line of reasoning are definitely incorrect, but all the same, the bonafides of the landlord were not shown to be established in view of the admission of the petitioner that there were two shops which were still vacant. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner states that there were 4 shops in all, out of which one shop was used as a garage, two shops in the occupation of the tenants and one shop was in the occupation of the landlord for his business, but the two shops were necessary for the landlord for setting up the business of his sons. All these explanations are more the points urged by the learned counsel without reference to the pleadings or evidence. In evidence, there is a clear reference to the two shops as vacant and a garage which is adjacent to the kothi. I cannot see from this evidence that the reference to two vacant shops was his reference to two shops to which he was himself in possession and that another was a garage. If a property was in his own occupation, there is no need for him to state that it was vacant. Again, if yet another shop was used as a garage, that also ought not to come for a reason for him to assume that the shop was vacant. In either event, the landlord could never have stated that two shops were vacant if it were really not so. As the counsel for the tenants points out, when two Courts have held the petitioner to hold two vacant shops in his possession, there is not even a ground urged in the revision that the authorities have committed a mis-appreciation of evidence and wrongly understood the reference to two vacant shops as two other shops other than the shop which the landlord was already in possession for running his business and garage where he was parking his car. The two courts below have examined the issue of bona fides on a simple issue of fact of the existence of two other shops which were vacant and that the evidence cannot be discarded to find the issue of bona fides in favour of the landlord.

(2.) The learned counsel for the landlord argues that one of the tenants has expired and his wife is working as an aganwadi workers and the shop remains closed from the year 2007. He also states that the rent is also not being paid. I had at the previous hearing sought the counsel for the respondent to take appropriate instructions about the contentions urged by the landlord so as to see that there is no further litigation between them. The counsel for the respondent, however, states that he was unable to secure appropriate instructions. I cannot therefore find a cause of action for eviction which is not a ground urged in the petition. It could be used by the landlord in his own future action, if he so chooses to do. As of now, the landlord cannot secure favourable orders, for, I find no reason to differ myself from the reasoning adopted by the respective Courts below. Both the revision petitions are dismissed.