YATAN CHADDHA Vs. KALI CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, namely, Yatan Chaddha and Jagjeet Singh, have filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the order of Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar dated 27.09.2010 (Annex.8) allowing tenant -respondent No. 1 -Kalicharan's appeal No. 10/09 -Kalicharan v. Yatan Chaddha & Anr., reversing the eviction decree dated 14.07.2009 passed by Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar decreeing the petitioners' eviction Petition No. 79/2005 -Yatan Chaddha & Anr. v. Kalicharan, inter -alia, on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord to start their property business and engineering consultancy profession in the suit shop measuring 8' x 20'.9". The respondent -tenant, Kalicharan had expired during the pendency of the present writ petition. Upon an application submitted by the petitioners being IA No. 2109/12 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the legal representatives of deceased respondent, Kalicharan were taken on record vide the order dated 12.09.2012 passed by Registrar (Administration) of this Court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners (landlord) urged that the findings of the bonafide need for the landlord, have been reversed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal on wholly erroneous grounds, namely, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has substituted his own opinion at Page 3/7 of the impugned judgment that it is not reasonably possible for these two persons/landlords to carry on the business of property dealer and engineering consultancy as alleged by them in the shop measuring 8' x 20'.9" only; and secondly, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has further erred in holding that after the purchase of shop in question by one of them, Jagjeet Singh on 17.03.1990, he has executed a fresh rent -agreement with the same tenant, Kalicharan in April, 1990, who was already occupying the shop in question as tenant and it was impractical as per the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal that if he needed the shop in question for carrying on his own engineering consultancy profession with Yatan Chaddha for property business, he would have purchased some other property, which was not tenanted. This assumption of the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal is erroneous, learned counsel for the landlord urged.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it is well settled by a catena of judgments by this Court as well as Apex Court that landlord is the best judge about his requirements and it is not for the tenant to dictate the terms in this regard, nor the Court can substitute its own wisdom or opinion about such requirement of land. If the bonafide requirement is established, the eviction decree is envisaged under the law.