SUBHASH CHANDER CHAWLA Vs. GURDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition filed under Section 15(5) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the Act') against the judgment and decree dated 4.3.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur holding that the landlord-respondent is entitled to order of ejectment on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. It has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that the afore-mentioned ground is available to the landlord-respondent in view of the fact that he intends to shift his business of repairing the Air-conditioners and Refrigerator from Dubai to Hoshiarpur. The Rent Controller had ordered ejectment on the ground of short tender of rent also but the finding on the afore-mentioned issue has been reversed by the learned Appellate Authority by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 514 (SC) : (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 370. It has also been held that the tenant is not to judge the need of the landlord and reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court in cases reported as Tripta Soni and another v. S.P. Jain, 1987(2) RCR(Rent) 181 (P&H), Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. M/s Traders and Agencies, 1996(2) RCR(Rent) 233 (S.C.) and Suman Gupta v. Smt. Shamila Gupta, 2000(2) RCR(Rent) 202 (P&H). Reference to these judgments have been made in para 22 of the impugned judgment by the Appellate Authority. The views of the Appellate Authority with regard to bona fide necessity of the landlord-respondent read as under :-

(2.) SHRI Sudeep Mahajan learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that both the Courts below have failed to consider the admission made by the landlord-respondent on 12.5.2002 that out of the set of six shops one of the shops had already been got vacated and that fact would show that the landlord-respondent has no bona fide necessity to occupy the shop. Learned counsel has also argued that the landlord-respondent has no intention to close his business in Dubai as his business till date is continuing there. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bal Kishan v. Sat Parkash Sood, 1994(1) RCR(Rent) 246 (P&H) : (1994-1)106 P.L.R. 71. According to the learned counsel once he has not closed the business either on the date of filing of ejectment petition or during the pendency of the petition it cannot be presumed that he requires the premises bona fide for his personal use. Learned counsel has maintained that evidence has come on record that the landlord-respondent is not keeping good health and for that purpose he is taking treatment at USA which is extremely expensive. In order to meet the expenses for his treatment, the landlord-respondent has to continue his business in Dubai because in the absence of good return he would not be able to get medical aid from USA. Therefore, it is unlikely that the landlord-respondent would occupy the premises at Hoshiarpur by shifting his business at Dubai.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this petition it liable to be dismissed because both the Courts below have concurrently found that the landlord-respondent requires two shops for his bona fide necessity to establish his business which he was conducting at Dubai. Whether he actually shifts or he continues at Dubai cannot be seen at this stage. Under the Act there are adequate remedies available to the tenant in case the landlord who had got ejectment of the tenant ordered on the ground of personal necessity by filing appropriate application before the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the tenant is no one to guide the landlord as to what is his personal necessity. It has also been held whether the landlord is financially capable to start the business or not is no concern of the tenant. Therefore, no occasion is provided to interfere in the orders of ejectment passed by the Courts below. I also do not find any ground to accept the submission with regard to vacation of one shop because there is no discussion in the orders passed by the Courts below and moreover one shop may not be sufficient for the landlord-respondent to start his business. The ground that he has not shifted his business by relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Bal Kishan (supra) would also not be acceptable because it is well known that litigation in this country takes some time to mature. The landlord having well established business cannot first close the business and then start litigation. He cannot be expected to shift during the midst of the litigation. The expenses which are to be incurred by the landlord on his illness is of no concern of the tenant and the afore-mentioned argument would not require any detailed consideration. The petition is devoid of any merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.