Malook Singh vs Lakhbir Singh

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—Notwithstanding concurrent findings of Rent Controller dated 13.12.2012 as also of the Appellate Authority dated 1.5.2014, ordering eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of personal necessity, counsel for the petitioner has claimed that there is no bonafide need of the son of the petitioner and that the entire litigation had been carried on by the respondent-landlord just to enhance the rate of rent of the premises. Citing Jiya Ram Vs. Purshotam Dass , Joti Prasad Gongel Vs. Chand Bihari Lal (Decd) thru Lrs. and Ravinder Sood and Another Vs. Mohan Lal, , it is claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that the non-applicant/landlord had not approached the Rent Controller with clean hands and rather had concealed and misstated the facts.

Referring to averments in petition (Annexure P-1), it is claimed that it was no where pleaded by the landlord that he was in possession of two premises one of which was under his possession whereas the other one was on tenancy with another tenant. It is claimed that this factual position was concealed by the landlord and playing fraud on the Rent Controller, the ejectment of the petitioner was sought.

When reference to averments in the petition (Annexure P-1) is made, there is para 2(b), wherein there is specific plea regarding personal necessity. For ready reference, it is appended as below:-

(b) That the abovesaid shop is required for personal use for the son of applicant namely Pardeep Singh, who is unemployed.

Contesting this plea, the tenant had set up, inter alia, one preliminary objection which is as below:-

That the applicant has come to the Hon''ble Court with unclean hands and has suppressed material facts from the Hon''ble Court but the ownership of his shop, which he is occupying and running the business of photography on it.

Even on merits denying averments of the petition contained in para 2(b) as reproduced earlier, plea of the tenant is as below:-

(b) That sub para (b) of para no. 2 of the application is wrong, incorrect and hence denied. It is wrong that the shop in question is required for personal use and occupation for the alleged son of the applicant. In fact alleged son namely Pardeep Singh is not related to the applicant in any way and as such no question of personally necessity arise at all. If at any stage of proceedings of the case the petitioner proved the fact about the existence of alleged Pardeep Singh as his son, then also the ground of personal use of the shop in question for his alleged son is not bonafide and rather, the same is malafide one. Indeed the real fact is that the market where the shop in question is situated has become very busy market and the value of the area has increased. The alleged need is not bonafide. Rather, the same is malafide one as the applicant has been pressuring the respondent to increase the rent of the shop in question but the respondent is unable to fulfill the alleged demand of the applicant. That is why, the present applicant has filed the present application with malafide motive just to harass the respondent and to get the shop vacated on fake grounds.

In the rejoinder preferred by the landlord, stand of the tenant contained in preliminary objection as also in written statement on merits was strongly contested. Para 2 of preliminary objection as also para 2(b) on merits of rejoinder of the landlord are reproduced below for ready reference:-

That para no. 2 of the preliminary objection of the reply is wrong, incorrect hence denied.

X X X X X X X

2b. That para no. 2b of the reply is wrong, incorrect hence denied specifically. That para no. 2b of the application is admitted to be correct. It is specifically denied that Pardeep Singh not related to applicant in anyway. In fact Pardeep Singh is the real son of the applicant.

It is thus to be noticed that the tenant had even denied the relationship of Pardeep Singh as son of the landlord in bit to denounce the claim of the landlord that he required the premises for personal use of his son. In terms of his pleadings, the landlord testified by way of affidavit, relevant portion of which is reproduced as below:-

That the dispute shop is needed for my son Pardeep Singh age 22 years, who is 10+2 pass for doing business. I or my son do not have any shop in the Tarn Taran or outside Taran Taran in our ownership. My son knows the work of mobile and telephone and has knowledge of instruments of downloading.

When the cross-examination was effected on the landlord, he gave detailed and transparent picture. Relevant portion of his cross-examination is reproduced as below:-

It is correct that Malook Singh possessing the suit property as tenant since 1971. It is correct that before filing the present suit Malook Singh was regularly paying rent to me. It is correct that I have another shop in the same market where the suit property is situated. It is incorrect that I and my son are doing the business of photography in that other shop, voluntarily said that my son is unemployed. It is correct that after Tarn Taran became district, the rates of the property become sky high. It is correct that the place where the suit property is situated is the centre of the city and a busy market. It is incorrect that I demanded excessive/enhanced rent of the shop in dispute and on refusal of Malook Singh to pay the same. I filed the present suit in order to pressurize him. It is incorrect to suggest that Pardeep Singh is not related to me. It is further incorrect to suggest that Pardeep Singh does not require the shop in dispute for his personal use.

It is worth mentioning that not only the Rent Controller but even the Appellate Court has wholesomely discussed the entire matter and considering the entire evidence had come to a finding that premises were required for personal necessity of son of the landlord.

It is claimed that neither the Rent Controller nor the Appellate Authority took into account availability of sufficient accommodation with the landlord and wrongly passed the eviction order against the tenant.

Discussing the pleadings and entire evidence of the parties, the Rent Controller had pointedly evaluated the claim of the tenant that despite their being existence of alternative accommodation for the son of the landlord, he had wrongly been evicted. Plea of the tenant is not tenable. On this score findings of the Rent Controller are as under:-

Apart from that it is also important to mention here that in para no. 4 of the petition, applicant pleaded specifically that he as well as his son has not any vacant shop in the area of Municipal council Tarn Taran nor he got vacated any shop under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. So, he pleaded specifically that he is not having any vacant another shop. He has not stated that he is not having another shop in city Tarn Taran. Rather he pleaded that he is not having any vacant shop.

The Rent Controller had also come to a definite finding that premises were required for the son of the petitioner and there was personal necessity. The findings are as below:-

From the above mentioned detailed discussion of mine, I have no hesitation to hold that the applicant has duly proved his case by way of leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence and proved on file that shop in question is required bonafidly for the use of son of the applicant Lakhbir Singh namely Pardeep Singh for running his business. Now onus shifting on the shoulders of the respondent to prove his version as he set out in the written reply that premises in question are not required bonafidly for the personal use of son of the applicant. In that regard, I would like to discuss here that respondent though examined two witnesses in oral evidence but he miserably failed to prove on file that shop in question is not required for bonafide use of son of the applicant namely Pardeep Singh and further that the present petition has been filed by the applicant just to enhance the rate of rent of shop in question. Even RW1 Malook Singh, in his cross-examination admitted that at the time of filing of the present case, applicant was not having any vacant shop but he is carrying the business of photography in one shop owned by him and another shop which is adjoining to the shop in dispute is purchased by his son and his son is also carrying a business of cloth merchant and he has purchased said shop about 8/9 years ago. As the son of the respondent is doing separate business of cloth merchant separately from the respondent in similar manner son of the applicant requires the shop in question for his independent business of Mobile and there is nothing wrong in it and this fact is duly proved by the applicant by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence, whereas, respondent has miserably failed to prove his version as set out by him in his written reply. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the applicant and against the respondent.

Even the Appellate Authority did not mince words and balancing the scales between the rival claims, verdicted as below:-

The main question in this case is as to whether petitioner Lakhbir Singh requires demised premises for the need of his son Pardip Singh for starting business. So far as the question of maintainability is concerned, petitioner has cleared in his petition that he and his son were not having any vacant shop in the urban area of Tarn Taran nor got vacated any shop within that area. Although, petitioner has not pleaded things in a clear manner, but during the course of evidence, petitioner himself and his son cleared that in fact petitioner has two shops within the urban area of Tarn Taran and one of such shops is in possession of petitioner, wherein he has been running business of photography and the other shop is in possession of respondent Malook Singh as tenant of petitioner, wherein he has been running business of clothing and apart from that, there was no other shop with petitioner. Even, respondent Malook Singh admitted so in his cross-examination and also that of his witness Partap singh in his cross-examination to that effect.

Having regard to such discussion and keeping in view the law laid down by Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in above mentioned authority, there remains no doubt in saying that petition is perfectly maintainable and there is no affect on the case of the petitioner for not taking plea in a clear manner, as submitted above.

Another aspect is that of bonafide need of petitioner qua demised shop. Petitioner has taken a plea that his son Pardeep Singh requires the demised shop for running his business. During evidence, petitioner Lakhbir Singh and his son Pardip Singh appeared and they submitted things categorically in their respective affidavits. It is also submitted that Pardip Singh would like to start business of mobile phones, etc. and he has knowledge to that effect. It is immaterial that petitioner has failed to place on record any documentary evidence regarding knowledge of Pardip Singh regarding that business and further about his financial capacity to assist Pardip Singh in starting that business. Otherwise against that cogent evidence from the side of petitioner, nothing authenticated has come on record from the side of respondent to rebut and to show that such need of petitioner is not bonafide and in fact petition is filed just to pressurize respondent Malook Singh. In the given set of circumstances, there is no hesitation in concluding that petitioner requires demised shop bonafide for starting business of his son in that shop and learned Rent Controller has rightly decided that aspect in favour of petitioner Lakbir Singh and such finding of learned Rent Controller is affirmed accordingly.

Keeping in view the concurrent findings on facts and there being no concealment of facts or defrauding of the Rent Controller as has been alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner, no ground is made out to interfere in the well written orders of the Courts below.

Finding no merits, the present petition is dismissed.