MADAN LAL Vs. HARDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the tenant-petitioner against the judgment dated 14.9.2006 passed by the appellate authority whereby the judgment dated 14.6.2005 passed by the Rent Controller allowing the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (in short, "the Act") of the landlady-respondent, was upheld. Put shortly, the facts necessary for disposal of the present petition as narrated therein are that the father of the respondent-landlady purchased booth No. 47, Sector 22D, Chandigarh and the ownership was transferred on 20.5.1999 in the name of the respondent by the Estate Officer as per decree passed by the civil court of Meerut. The said booth was taken on rent by the petitioner on 13.3.1982 from the father of the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. The petitioner did not pay rent and was in arrears of rent from June 1989 till date. Accordingly, the respondent filed an eviction petition on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent; she required the demised premises for her own use and occupation for doing the business of readymade garments and that the tenant had made material alterations thereby decreasing the utility of the booth. Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant filed reply taking various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was admitted that earlier Hazura Singh was the owner of the demised premises but he did not let out the same to the petitioner. Besides controverting the averments made in the petition, a prayer for dismissal of the ejectment petition was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:-

(2.) Issues No. 1 and 2 were decided against the landlady and in favour of the tenant. Issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the landlady holding that she required the booth in question for her personal use and occupation whereas under issue No. 4 it was held that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Accordingly, the Rent Controller vide judgment dated 14.6.2005 allowed the ejectment petition filed by the landlady and directed the tenant to deliver the vacant possession of the booth in question to the landlady within two months. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant filed an appeal before the appellate authority who vide judgment dated 14.9.2006 upheld the judgment of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the tenant has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submitted that the need of the landlady-respondent was not bonafide. The petition had been filed only to evict the tenant. The landlady had expressed her wish and not the bonafide requirement. The conduct of the respondent was not genuine. Reference was made to the statement of the landlady who had appeared as PW1 and in particular to her examination-in-chief, wherein it was stated that "if my booth is vacated then I will think whether I am to run business or not." According to the learned counsel, this clearly negated the requirement of personal necessity as the landlady was not even sure as to whether the business was to be run or not and which business she was to run in the premises and, therefore, the authorities below were in error in recording the finding of personal necessity in her favour. Reliance was placed upon judgment of this Court in CR No. 5081 of 2003 decided on 8.7.2010 (Mrs. Ranbir Talib @ Mrs. Ranbir Satwant Singh v. M/s. Bhatia Gas), in support of his submission. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, 1999 2 RCR(Rent) 141 it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the requirement of the landlady was not genuine, real and sincere and, therefore, the petition has been wrongly allowed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the appellate authority on the ground of personal necessity. It was pointed out that the mesne profits in terms of order dated November 30, 2011 from the date of eviction order, i.e. 14.6.2005 till 31.8.2013 amounting to Rs. 14 lacs had been deposited and are lying with the Registrar of this Court. A prayer for the refund of the same was also made.