Om Parkash vs Jaswant

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Jai Dayal instituted an eviction petition against the Petitioner-tenant, who was carrying on a Dhaba in the

shop situated in Apna Bazar Rewari, near Bus Stand Haryana Roadways, Rewari. The Petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the year 1972 at a

monthly rent of Rs. 250/-plus house tax. The landlord instituted eviction petition on following three grounds:

(a) The tenant was in arrears of rent since 1st January, 2003;

(b) The building being non-commercial was rented out for doing business of Halwai, but in the year 2003, the tenant started non-veg hotel without

the consent of the landlord, which amounted to change of user;

(c) Lastly, it was pleaded that the shop in question was required for personal need of Omwati, daughter-in-law of the landlord, who had been

conducting her business in her residential house, as no shop was available. She was having two agencies, namely of Nerolack Paints and Asian

Paints and she had taken a temporary godown for storage.

The eviction petition further stated that the landlord had got four shops vacated in the year 1972 for the personal use of sons of the landlord.

The Rent Controller, Rewari held that the ground of non-payment of rent was no longer available to the landlord, as the rent was tendered on

the first day. It was further held that since the shop in question was let-out for doing the business of Halwai, preparation and selling of non-veg

items amounted to change of business, as it was not ancillary to the business of Halwai. The Rent Controller further held that Omwati, daughter-in-

law of the landlord was a graduate and was well versed with the business of paints. She had obtained two agencies, i.e. Nerolack Paints and Asian

Paints and for running of her business, the shop in question was required, as the daughter-in-law was dependent upon the landlord. Thus, the

eviction petition was accepted vide order dated 9th March, 2009.

Aggrieved against the order passed by the Rent Controller, Rewari, the Petitioner filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the

landlord died, as he was aged about 85 years. The appellate authority reversed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller regarding change of

user, however, it affirmed the findings regarding personal necessity. Hence, the present revision petition.

Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, has made following submissions:

(i) In his cross-examination, the landlord has admitted that one Parveen was inducted as a tenant two years before making of the statement in the

Court;

(ii) The landlord admitted that he was carrying on his restaurant under the name of Ujala Restaurant in the adjoining shop. It is stated that after the

death of landlord, that shop has fallen vacant and therefore, the daughter-in-law of the landlord can run her business of paints from that shop and

therefore, there is no need to get the shop in question vacated.

(iii) In no way it can be construed that daughter-in-law of the landlord was dependent upon the landlord, as her husband was running a separate

independent business.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to all the submissions made by counsel for the Petitioner. These are to be rejected for the following

reasons:

(a) In the cross-examination, a stray line has emerged that one Parveen was inducted as a tenant two years ago. After making this gain in the

cross-examination, the same was not taken to further logical conclusion. In the cross-examination, the counsel opted not to pursue this line. In

which shop Parveen was inducted? In which vicinity that shop is situated? Whether that shop is appropriate for running the business of paints?,

nothing was asked. Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to assume that the shop, in which Parveen was inducted, will oust the personal necessity

of daughter-in-law of the landlord for running the business of paints.

(b) The second submission made by counsel for the Petitioner that after the death of landlord, the premises from where Ujala Restaurant was being

run by the landlord has become available, also cannot be accepted as the business of Restaurant, being a family business, can be run by the three

sons of the landlord jointly. It does not lie in the mouth of the tenant to say that the landlord should close his business and provide the shop to the

tenant.

(c) Lastly, the argument that daughter-in-law was not dependent upon the landlord, cannot be accepted in the Indian social milieu. It is not only the

financial dependency, which is to be construed. One is always dependent upon the family for emotional and day-to-day needs. In the family, if

daughter-in-law is carrying on a business, it cannot be said that her father-in-law will not make the shop available to her, which is owned by him.

At this stage, Mr. Sharma has stated that size of the shop in question is 9 x 8 feet, therefore, it is not appropriate for daughter-in-law of the

landlord to run paints business therein. It has already come in evidence of the landlord that his daughter-in-law is having a godown for storage

therefore, it can be assumed that the shop in question is only required for use as a sales counter. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention

raised by counsel for the Petitioner.

Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Hon''ble the Apex Court in Joginder Pal Vs. Naval

Kishore Behal, to contend that even though, the term ''for his own use'' is to be given wider, liberal and practical meaning, still the daughter-in-law

will not fall within the definition of ''family''. This argument, in itself is retrograde and is not in consonance with the modern times. It has been

specifically held in Joginder Pal''s case (supra) as under:

...The requirement of a member of the family or of a person on whom the landlord is dependant or who is dependant on the landlord can be

considered to be the requirement of the landlord for his own use. In the several decided cases referred to hereinabove we have found the pari

materia provisions being interpreted so as to include the requirement of the wife, husband, sister, children including son, daughter, a widowed

daughter and her son, nephew, coparceners, members of family and dependents and kith and kin in the requirement of landlord as ''his'' or ''his

own'' requirement and user. Keeping in view the social or social-religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a

particular region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be, obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him

economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises

and such requirement would be the requirement of the landlord....

To say, in the modern times, that daughter-in-law is alien to the family and she should not be treated as a member of the family, cannot be

accepted. The time has come that daughter-in-law should be treated as a daughter of the family.

Taking totality of the circumstances into consideration, there is no merit in the present revision petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.