Ganga Saran Gautam vs Mulkraj Kumar

Surinder Gupta, J.—Respondent Mulkraj Kumar filed petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of the revision petitioners from the tenanted premises which comprised of a shop measuring 9 feet X 13 ½ feet forming part of house bearing No. 1-B/169, NIT Faridabad District Faridabad on the ground of non-payment of rent from 01.10.2008 to 30.09.2011, subletting and personal bona fide necessity.

As per the respondent-landlord, the shop was let out to petitioner No. 1 who has further sublet the same to respondent No. 2 in the year 1999 without his written consent and permission. Now, respondent No. 2 is doing the business in the tenanted premises under the name and style of Gautam Cloth House and Modman Tailors. Respondent also projected his personal bona fide necessity for the demised premises inter alia pleading in para 9(ii) of the petition, which reads as follows:-

“(ii) That the petitioner is absolutely un-employed and job less person being retired person from Armed Forces of Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Army Head Quarters, New Delhi and hence he wants to do some his own business over the shop in question for his livelihood. Thus there is bona fide requirement of the petitioner of the shop in question.”

The revision petitioners paid the rent up to first of September, 2011, denied the plea of subletting raised by the respondent-landlord inter-alia pleading that revision petitioner No. 1 is carrying on his business in the demised premises under the name and style of Gautam Cloth House and Modman Tailors. The personal bona fide necessity for the demised premises projected by the landlord was also denied.

Pleadings of the parties led to the framing of issues as follows:-

(1) Whether the respondents are in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.10.2008 to 30.09.2011 ?OPP

(2) Whether the respondent no. 1 has further let out the premises in question to respondent no. 2 without the consent of the petitioner ?OPP

(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the premises in question vacated on the ground that he is an unemployed retired person from the Armed force and requires the shop in question for bonafide need ?OPD

(4) Whether the petitioner has no locus standi and no cause of action to file the present petition ?OPR

(5) Relief.

The grounds of subletting and personal bona fide necessity raised by the landlord-respondent were upheld. The revision petitioners have taken the plea in the written statement that they are brothers and revision petitioner No. 2 is helping revision petitioner No. 1 in his business. While delving on this point, learned Rent Controller has observed in para 12 of his order as follows:-

“12. ………………. However, the perusal of the case file shows that the respondent no. 1 has miserably failed to prove this assertions of his. The ld. Counsel for the petitioner draw the attention of this court to the cross-examination of respondent no. 1. Perusal of the cross-examination of this witness shows that he has stated that the father’s name of the respondent no. 2 is Bhulley Singh whereas his fathers name is Harjas Singh. Ld.counsel for the petitioner argued that if the father’s name of both i.e. respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 is different then how they can be the brothers. Though the Ld.counsel for the respondents tried to counter the argument of the ld.counsel for the petitioner by arguing that the respondent no. 2 is not the real brother of respondent no. 1 whereas he is his cousin brother. However, since the respondent no. 1 has admitted this fact that the respondent no. 2 is sitting on the tenanted premises and carries the business, then a very strong burden of proof shifts upon the respondent no. 1 to show that the respondent no. 2 is not the sub tenant under him and since, he has taken a specific stand that the respondent no. 2 is his brother then the onus was upon the him to show the relationship between him and respondent no. 2.”

On the issue of requirement of the demised premises by the respondent-landlord for his personal bona fide necessity, the Rent Controller has observed in para 15 of his order as follows:-

“15. Perusal of the above mentioned section makes it very clear that a landlord who has retired from the armed force of the union of India may within a period of 3 years from the date of his retirement or discharge as the case may be, applied to the controller for an order for eviction. The only rider upon the right of the landlord is that he will not be able to obtain the possession of a commercial building if at the same time he is in possession of any other commercial building of the same class. In this case, it is proved fact that the petitioner retired from the armed services on 31.12.2009 and he filed this petition on 22.9.2011 i.e. well within the period of three years and further the respondents have miserably failed to shows that the petitioner is owner of any other shop of the same class.”

The revision petitioners were directed to vacate the demised premises and hand over the vacant possession to the respondent-landlord.

Not satisfied, the revision petitioner filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 22.09.2014.

I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners and have perused the paper book with his assistance.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner while referring to the petition under Section 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 filed by the respondent, has argued that the respondent has nowhere disclosed the nature of business he wants to start in the demised premises, about his experience to do the business and his resources and means to start such business. He has argued that as per the respondent himself, he has retired from Armed Forces. He has no experience to do any business and in the absence of any such plea, put forth by him, his requirement of demised premises for his personal necessity is actuated by greed and not the bona fide need.

While discussing the requirement of the demised premises by the respondent for his personal bona fide necessity, the Appellate Authority on the basis of evidence on record, has observed as follows:-

“23. Admittedly, petitioner retired from Government service. Amount of pension of course is not sufficient to meet his requirements. Moreover, if a landlord wants to earn a few more bucks, there is no bar. His other brothers are also working in shop bequeathed by his father. In case he wants to start his own business, there is nothing wrong. So, it cannot be said that he does not require it for bonafide need. Moreover, respondent has two shops in Dabua Colony. He can start his business there. On the other hand, a tenant has no business to guide a landlord what to do and what not to.”

It is not disputed that the landlord has retired from Military services. He wants to start business in order to supplement his family income. It is no where required under law to project as to what business the landlord wants to carry out in the demised premises. A person can think of starting business only when he has a premises to start the same. There is no purpose of planning to start a business without having the premises. A particular business which may be suitable at a particular point of time, may not be alluring with the passage of time. Many changes and developments take place in the market, as such, it is appropriate to consider starting of a particular business only when one has to start it. So far as the plea of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that respondent did not possess any experience to carry any business also do not have any merit. A person even without any experience in commercial and industrial fields may not only be very successful and even some times cause wonder as we have witnessed in the recent times that some of the business tycoons of this country have risen to great heights despite having no experience in business and with limited means. The wish of the respondent-landlord to start the business to supplement his income cannot be doubted on the mere ground that he has not disclosed the business he wants to start or his means to start the business.

The Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority have committed no error of law or fact while reaching the conclusion about the requirement of personal bona fide necessity of the respondent-landlord qua the demised premises. The findings of both the authorities call for no interference.

As the revision petitioners have to vacate the shop even on the sole ground that the same is required by the respondent for his personal bona fide necessity, the other grounds raised by the respondent- landlord seeking ejectment of the revision petitioners need no detailed discussion.

This petition has no merits. Dismissed.