Brij Lal Gupta and Another vs Ashok Kumar @ Pappu

Mahesh Grover, J.—This revision petition is directed against judgments dated 7.4.2005 and 23.1.2009 passed respectively by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh whereby the eviction application and the appeal of the petitioners were dismissed.

The petitioners filed an application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, `the Act'') for ejectment of the respondent from the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity, but the authorities below did not find any merit in his claim and rejected the same. It was concluded that the petitioners were not specific in their pleadings and failed to produce evidence to that effect.

The only ground that has been urged before this Court is that the petitioners require the demised premises for their personal use and occupation, but the evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority. It has been contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that there is material on record to show that the petitioners were in occupation of a part of the adjoining premises and were transacting business therefrom. It has further been contended that income tax returns were placed on record to show that the petitioners were progressing in business and, therefore, the demised premises was required for augmentation of the already existing business.

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent despite the fact that he has been served. In such an eventuality, the Court is left with no other option but to proceed to determine the petition.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the petitioners and perusing the material on record, I do not deem it to be a fit case where interference with the findings recorded by the authorities below is warranted.

The petitioners, in their application u/s 13 of the Act, pleaded as under:

11.That the petitioner/landlord wants to augment his business and for this purpose, additional plant and machinery/equipment is required to be installed as well as more space is required by the petitioner/landlord in order to achieve the requisite augmentation. The petitioner/landlord, therefore, requires the entire premises for his personal bona fide necessity and on this ground also, the respondent is liable to vacate the demised premises. The petitioner/landlord does not have any other building in the Urban Area of Chandigarh for expansion of his business and nor has the petitioner/landlord vacated any commercial building after commencement of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act,1949 in the City of Chandigarh.

Thereafter, in his testimony, petitioner No. 2 while appearing as PW1, deposed more or less on the same lines, but in the cross-examination, some information was given that they were transacting business of trading in chemicals.

I am afraid, aforementioned pleadings and evidence are not sufficient to establish the bona fide need of the petitioners. In an application u/s 13 of the Act, when a landlord invokes such provisions to seek ouster of a tenant on the ground of personal necessity, he has to plead some basic essentials from where his personal necessity can easily be inferred. In the instant case, if the pleadings are to be seen, then the same can, at best, be termed to be vague. The petitioners have not pleaded as to what was the nature of the business being transacted by them and how much space was required to augment their business. They had to show sufficiently before the Rent Controller that the premises they were occupying was insufficient and merely because the income tax returns have been proved which showed upward trend, does not disclose the nature of the business the petitioners were engaged in and that they need more space. A person occupying a smaller place and operating therefrom can also have progressive trend, but it would be erroneous to infer that the rising income would always require more space unless it is shown that the nature of the business he is engaged in, dictates a larger space. For example, if a person, who is engaged in brokerage or even in trading as has been suggested by the petitioners, can operate from a small tenement with necessary infrastructure required for transacting such business, but at the same time, when it is shown that he is engaged in the trade and stocking of material or manufacturing thereof and there is an upward trend in income and business, then need for more space can be inferred.

However, in the present case, in the absence of any requisites of the nature of business and the consequent need for more space, which have neither been pleaded nor proved, I am of the opinion that the findings of the authorities below do not warrant any interference and the petition deserves dismissal. Ordered accordingly.

At this stage, the Counsel for the petitioners stated that liberty may be granted to the petitioners to file a fresh petition.

The prayer need not be answered because it is always open to a landlord to seek the eviction of his tenant on any of the grounds specified in Section 13 of the Act and if he can, at any point of time, establish his bona fide need, the same shall be assessed by the Rent Controller independently on the basis of pleadings and material before it.