Jai Lal Kuthiala vs Swatantar Kumar

Mahesh Grover, J.—The petitioners impugn the order dated 5.4.2013 passed by the learned Appellate Court accepting the rent petition preferred by the respondents/landlords seeking eviction of the petitioners under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The eviction of the petitioners was sought on the ground of nonpayment of rent and personal necessity. Since the rent had been paid, that issue was rendered redundant leaving the court to examine the issue of personal necessity.

The learned Rent Controller rejected the plea of the respondents/landlord, but in appeal, the findings were reversed.

Referring to the personal necessity and bona fide need, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that respondent No. 1 had retired as a Superintending Engineer from the Construction Circle of the P.W.D. (B & R Branch) and thus intended to set up a business for himself in the demised premises which were now in occupation of the petitioners.

The solitary point that requires to be determined in this case centres around the need of the respondents and whether it is genuine or not.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no evidence on record which would suggest that the respondents wanted to enter into business and that merely because they have stated so on affidavit, would not be sufficient to conclude as such. He has placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in P.C. Verman (Retd.) Lt. Col. Dr. Vs. Mohinder Singh and Others, wherein it has been observed that the provisions of the Act are intended to protect the tenant and should be interpreted in a way to be beneficial to the tenant. He has also placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sri Kempaiah Vs. Lingaiah and Others, : Sri Kempaiah Vs. Lingaiah and Others, to say that there is a distinction between'' desire'' and ''requirement'' and therefore, the requirement would necessarily involve the elements of necessity and according to him, these elements are absent from the instant case altogether.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has stated that respondent No. 1 has sufficient experience to start his own business venture being a retired Superintending Engineer from the Construction Circle of the P.W.D. (B & R Branch) and immediately after his retirement, if he intended to set up his own business, then the petitioners cannot find fault with it to say that it is not a requirement and is only a wish. He has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Smt. Janak Dulari Khosla Vs. Jaswinder Singh and Others, : Smt. Janak Dulari Khosla Vs. Jaswinder Singh and Others, .

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and appraising the order of the Appellate Authority, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Respondent No. 1 has retired from service and was concededly working as a Superintending Engineer in the Construction Circle of the P.W.D. (B & R Branch) and would be fully equipped in experience to start a business venture and even otherwise, the petitioners who are tenants, cannot question the expertise of a person to manage his business affairs. If respondent No. 1 starts out his business, it is for him i.e. the landlord to see what is suitable for his need and if he intends to initiate himself into a productive business venture after his retirement, then it cannot be said that it is merely a wish or a desire bereft of any requirement. It is not necessary for him to demonstrate and satisfy the curiosity of the tenant that his need is genuine.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Pratap Rai Tanwani and Another Vs. Uttam Chand and Another, : Pratap Rai Tanwani and Another Vs. Uttam Chand and Another, while placing reliance on the observations made in Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, has held as under:-

"The only way of peeping into the mind of the landlord is an exercise undertaken by the judge of facts by placing himself in the armchair of the landlord and then posing a question to himself - Whether in the given facts, substantiated by the landlord, the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest - If the answer be in the positive, the need is bona fide."

This view has been approvingly reiterated in various other pronouncements of the Hon''ble Supreme Court such as Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, , Atma S. Berar Vs. Mukhtiar Singh, and also in Janak Dulari Khosla v. Jaswinder Singh (supra) upon which the learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Appellate Authority has rightly appreciated the controversy and its order does not warrant any interference more particularly when the petitioners have a safeguard under the Act itself in the event of the respondents not putting the demised premises to the intended use. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is held to be without any merit and is dismissed.