PARIKSHAT SURI Vs. ASHOK KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above case was in the regular board and on a mention being made that there was an urgent need for premises and that the case might be taken up, it was posted for hearing among the regular cases today on 20.05.2009. The case was called for in the morning and after ascertaining that both parties were ready, it was passed over for hearing at 1:45 P.M. Throughout the entire stage of proceedings when counsel for the revision petitioner was making submissions, there had been no representation on behalf of the respondent to state that the respondent's counsel was not ready and at the conclusion of the arguments, an adjournment was sought on behalf of the respondent. The case has been instituted before the Rent Controller in the year 1997 and I find that there is no justification for a plea on behalf of the tenant to seek for an adjournment when the case is in the regular board for final hearing. I reject the plea for an adjournment and proceed to hear and dispose of the civil revision on the basis of records and on the basis of submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE petition for eviction was filed on three grounds namely non payment of rent, personal requirement of the landlord to the premises and on the ground of subletting by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent. On payment of rent before the Rent Controller at the first hearing, the grounds that survived for consideration were the personal necessity for the building as contended by the landlord and subletting. The Rent Controller upheld the contention of the landlord and granted an eviction. The Appellate Court reversed the decision on both counts and the landlord is the party before this Court as a revision petitioner assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority.

(3.) THE Rent Controller found the need of the landlord to be genuine, having regard to the fact that the landlord was admittedly in the business of publication and sale of law journals and that the property which the landlord already was in occupation of in the adjoining premises, after eviction of his earlier tenant M/s Novopan, was using it as an office and the property in his occupation being not sufficient, the requirement as given out by the landlord for carrying on the business was fully justified. The tenant's contention about the availability of the office space in the adjoining premises was rejected by the Rent Controller on the principle that the landlord was the best judge for directing his needs and there was nothing mala fide about the landlord requiring his own premises for carrying on the business, which he was admittedly doing from New Delhi. A copy of the site plan has also been filed and exhibited in evidence that showed that the office premises with the landlord was in occupation of, was a part of the whole property that had been allotted to him. The reference is made by the learned Senior Counsel to this document to show that the property in the occupation of the landlord is only the office portion and it will not possible to establish a printing press in such an office premise.