Sinder Pal Singh vs Nirpal Singh and Others

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—Challenge in the present petition is to the judgments passed by both the Courts below whereby the petition for ejectment filed by the landlord (respondent No. l) u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ''the Act'') has been accepted and Sinder Pal Singh tenant (petitioner herein) has been ordered to be ejected from the demised shop.

In brief the facts of the case are that the demised shop was let out to the present petitioner Sinder Pal Singh at a monthly rent of Rs. 175/- by the original landlady Smt. Shakuntala Devi widow of Jagan Nath on 26.1.1980. She executed a Will in favour of Nirpal Singh (respondent No. l) and after her death in December, 1994, the said shop came to be inherited by Nirpal Singh, present landlord. He filed a petition u/s 13 of the Act on the ground of personal necessity. It was pleaded by him that earlier he was driving a three-wheeler and was getting a very meagre salary from the owner thereof. Now as he was not keeping good health, he left the job and he needs the shop to run his Karyana business therein. The plea raised by the landlord was accepted by the Rent Controller, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide judgment dated 19.11.2001 and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in dispute within three months. The appeal filed by the tenant-petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide judgment dated 14.3.12003. Now the tenant has filed the present revision petition to challenge the ejectment order passed by both the Courts below.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord has failed to prove by leading congent evidence that he was suffering from kidney problem and that he has got the expertise to establish the business. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord has also failed to prove his personal requirement. The counsel contends that a number of ejectment petitions filed by the earlier landlady were dismissed by the Courts. Thus, he contends that the present petition for ejectment filed by respondent No. 1 ought to have been dismissed on that basis.

I do not find merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence adduced by both the parties in support of their case. After appreciation of the evidence, the Courts have given concurrent finding that the landlord has been able to prove his personal requirement and ordered the ejectment of the tenant from the demised shop. In Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinary and Co., . It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme court that concurrent findings recorded by the lower Courts cannot be interfered with regard to the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below. Thus, it is not proper for this court to interfere in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below that the landlord has been able to prove his personal necessity. Even the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord has another shop at Amloh, cannot be a good ground to upset the findings of both the Courts below even if it is proved to be so. In Ragavendra Kumar''s case (supra) the landlord stated that he owned many shops and houses, but the premises in suit were most suitable to him. It was held by their Lordships that it was not proper to interfere in the concurrent findings given by the lower courts on appreciation of evidence.

The plea raised by the tenant that the landlord did not have sufficient expertise to run the Karyana business, is also without any force. In Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkune, AIR 1999 S.C. 226, it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that lack of bona fide on part of landlord cannot be inferred simply because be had no previous experience. It is not necessary for the landlord to establish previous experience, Moreover, landlord is the master of his own needs. The finding of fact of personal requirement based on evidence cannot be disturbed in a revisions petition. In this view of mine I am fortified by a decision of this Court in Kishan Chand v. V. K. Dhawan 1999 (1) R.C.R. 141. In the present case the landlord has contended that he has three children, who are school-going. As he was not keeping good health, he has left the job of driver of a three-wheeler. Thus, he required the shop in dispute for his personal requirement. It has not been proved on record that he has vacated any other shop within the Municipal limits of Amloh. The landlord is not required to bring any documentary evidence with regard to his disease in order to get the demised shop vacated from the tenant. There is no infirmity in the well reasoned judgments passed by both the Courts below.

Consequently, there is no merit in the present revision petition, it is, accordingly, dismissed. The tenant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the landlord on or before March 15, 2005.