CHANDER SHEKHAR Vs. BISHAN DEVI THROUGH LRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is filed at the instance of the tenant, who was ordered to be evicted by the Appellate Authority. The Rent Controller had earlier dismissed the petition filed by the landlord seeking for eviction on the ground of personal necessity under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

(2.) THE dismissal of the petition before the Rent Controller proceeded on a reasoning that the landlord had stated that the property was required for setting up of a business of her son Manohar Lal. But in evidence she admitted that Manohar Lal had gone out of town but came back and was not doing any business due to his ill-health. He would not do the business but she would herself run the business with the financial assistance that she expected to be provided by her son-in-law. The Rent Controller had also considered the fact that the landlady was in possession of a residential accommodation which contained a room that opened into a road and that it would be always possible for using that property for running a business. On such a line of reasoning, the bona fides of requirement of the tenanted premises was found to be not established by the landlord. This reasoning was upset by the Appellate Court which allowed the appeal filed by the landlord.

(3.) HAVING regard to the fact that the grand sons of the original landlord had been brought on record as legal representatives claiming under the Will, the point for consideration would be whether the subsequent events altered the perception regarding the bona fides of the need of a landlord. Predictably, the contentions of the counsel for the tenant and landlord have swung between the extremes of the pendulum, where learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would state that the subsequent event of death of both the mother and son had a direct bearing to the final outcome of the petition that must be heard for dismissal; while, on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would state that the needs of the legal representatives have been adequately explained in the affidavit filed at the time of impleadment as LRs and it would be an unnecessary waste of time to examine the bona fides again. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to by the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner have been outlined in Kedar Nath Agarwal (dead) v. Dhanraji Devi (dead) by LRs., 2004(2) RCR(Rent) 498 : 2004(9) JT 113 (SC) and Raj Kumar Vij v. Hem Singla and others, 2007(2) RCR(Rent) 597 : 2008(1) RCR(Civil) 44 (P&H). Yet another decision which was adverted to the effect of subsequent event has been the decision in Prabha Arora and Anr. v. Brij Mohini Anand and others, 2007(2) RCR(Rent) 600 : AIR 2008 SC 643.