Jaswant Singh sole Proprietor M/s. D. Sons Enterprises vs Jaswant Singh

Jaswant Singh, J.—Petitioner (tenant) is in revision against the judgment dated 18.03.2013 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana whereby the findings returned by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana vide order dated 30.05.2011 have been reversed and his eviction has been ordered from the demised premises on the ground of bona fide use and need. In brief, facts of the case are that the respondent (landlord) has filed the eviction petition on the ground of his bona fide use and necessity by stating that he intends to shift to Ludhiana from Calcutta because his business in Calcutta has failed due to various reasons and thus, he intends to come back to Ludhiana and start his business here. It was also stated that his wife has already shifted to Ludhiana and he has to always remain on the move by coming to Ludhiana and then go back to Calcutta for running whatever business he can do. Apart from these grounds, it was also stated by landlord that in his twilight years of life he intends to live at his native place with his wife and to earn livelihood.

Upon notice, the averments were denied by the petitioner (tenant) and it was stated that there was no bona fide necessity as projected by him in his petition, and thus prayer was made for dismissal of the petition.

From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides led evidence and after appreciating their evidence, learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition filed by the respondent herein and findings thereof were reversed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana. Hence the present revision.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) has argued that the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana has wrongly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent (landlord) on the ground of personal necessity. It is proved on record that children and grandchildren of the respondent (landlord) are permanently settled in Calcutta and this fact has been observed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana. Thus, it was argued that in view of the permanent settlement of the clan of the respondent (landlord) in Calcutta, it cannot be presumed that he would come back to Ludhiana and start his business afresh.

After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) and perusing the record carefully, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of any merit and same deserves to be dismissed. In the present case, the plea taken by the respondent (landlord) is that his business, which was being carried out by him in Calcutta, has been adversely effected due to certain reasons which have been mentioned in his ejectment application. It is further the case of the respondent (landlord) that due to adverse impact upon his business, he intends to shift to Ludhiana and start his business here. It is also his ground that since he and his wife are in twilight years of their life, they intended to spend their remaining lifetime in Ludhiana, among other Sikhs as there are no Sikhs in Calcutta. It is in this background that this Court has to examine as to whether the need is bona fide or not. It is evident from the record that the petitioner (tenant) in his cross examination has admitted that respondent (landlord) and his wife are residing on the first floor of the demised premises and further, he had shown his ignorance regarding the fact as to whether the respondent (landlord) intended to settle permanently at Ludhiana or not. In such circumstances, the factum of respondent (landlord) and his wife shifting to Ludhiana, itself constitutes intention on part of respondent (landlord) to shift themselves to their native place at Ludhiana and start business being bona fide. Any person who settles in a new place would like to do a business and settle his life, rather than sitting idle and be a burden upon his kith and kin. In such a background, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) that the children and grand children are permanently settled in Calcutta, pales into insignificance due to the categoric stand taken by the respondent (landlord) regarding his own necessity of shifting to Ludhiana and starting a business. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.