SUNIL DHAWAN Vs. SATWANT KAUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application before the Rent Controller for eviction was made on the ground of the personal requirement of the landlord. It was an admitted case that there were seven co -owners in relation to the property and four of them joined together to file a petition. The first petitioner had died pending the petition and his wife had been impleaded as a legal representative. Significantly the requirement of the landlord had been spelt out for distinct purposes. The first petitioner claimed that he required the property for setting up a boutique and the third petitioner claimed that his wife was a Dental Surgeon and that the property was necessary for establishing a dental clinic. The third petitioner and fourth petitioner who claimed to be sons of one Avtar Singh also claimed that they intended to shift their residence to Chandigarh to educate their respective children, when they themselves had been serving in several places in the Army and they wanted to set up a permanent place for their children.

(2.) THE Rent Controller dismissed the petition finding that there was no bona fide necessity for the landlords. In appeal, the Appellate Court found on factual evidence that the requirement of setting up of automobile business was not permissible in the location as per the development regulations at Chandigarh and therefore, the need of first petitioner had not been established. It also pointed out that the first petitioner himself had died during the pendency of the proceedings and the second petitioner who was the sister of the deceased -first petitioner was more than 60 years old and they also would not have any experience in automobile business. It did not appear that either the second petitioner or the two sons of the deceased -first petitioner could ever be said to be interested to start a business of automobile spare parts but at the same time observed that the prayer of the landlord could not be declined on the ground of the old age of the second petitioner or that none of the members had any past experience in the said business. Adverting to the contention that the location of the property admitted of only carrying on general trade as per Chandigarh Administration notification No. 56/10/63 -UTFI(5) -2002/5232 dated 5.6.2002 that dealing in motor spare parts did not come within general trade category but all the same observed that it was not necessary to examine whether the landlord wanted to start a business which was legal or not. This observation was made on the perception of the Appellate Authority that the landlord was the best judge of his own requirement and he could not be given any advice or direction by the Court about type of business that a person must start. The Appellate Authority, however, also observed that the findings of the Rent Controller, regarding the requirements of the first petitioner was not shown to be bona fide, and hence no ejectment order could be passed on this ground. The plea made by the second petitioner that she was willing to open a boutique shop was also not proved by the fact that when she appeared as a witness, she had not uttered even a word about the so -called requirement as mentioned in the petition. The Appellate Authority also specifically adverted to her admission in the cross -examination that there was nothing to show that she had any income through her alleged activity of doing business in readymade garments. It therefore rejected the contention of the landlord with reference to the mode of user as set out in the petition filed by second petitioner. Adverting to the need of the third petitioner for setting up a dental clinic for his wife, the Court found that there was no reason to doubt the requirement of the landlord on this ground as legally and technically a dental clinic is a commercial activity. It consequently set aside the findings of the Rent Controller and found the requirement of the third petitioner was properly made out.

(3.) THE case requires to be examined on the only ground that a property had a large space, ground floor, basement, second, third and fourth floor and the landlords claimed a fractional share of 13.75%. In the half portion of the ground -floor on the front side and each one of the landlords had distinct needs and it was the conjoint needs of the respective landlords that gave a ground for eviction. If the needs of all the landlords having fractional shares in the property was found to be genuine and it was not possible to predicate the exact area necessary for the requirement of only one of the co -owners, the Court could not have passed a valid order of eviction. If the landlords had already decided any specific areas for carrying out the needs and if there was any such evidence regarding the same, it should have been possible for the Court to order eviction of the property which is particularly in the hands of any one tenant but if the tenancy was in respect of such portion, the integrity of the tenancy itself cannot be decimated and eviction could not be ordered only to the specified requirement of one of the landlords. Either all the landlords would establish their need and if any one of them failed, all would also fail. This is the inevitable result of a case where the property in the occupation of the tenant was larger than the respective needs of each one of the landlords. So long as all the landlords' needs put together had not established their respective needs, the court could not have granted the order of eviction.