Vinod K. Sharma, J.@mdashThis order shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 3192 of 2007 titled Gopal Singh v. Shri Murti Laxmi Narain Jee Wala Mandir, Talab Road, Gopi Colony, Faridabad and Civil Revision No. 3193 of 2007 titled D.C. Tanwar (Dal Chand Tanwar) v. Shri Murti Laxmi Narain Jee Wala Mandir, Talab Road, Gopi Colony, Old Faridabad, as the common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. These two revisions are directed against the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority ordering eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bona fide personal necessity and also on the ground of cease to occupy.
3. For convenience, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 3192 of 2007 titled Gopal Singh v. Shri Murti Laxmi Narain Jee Wala Mandir, Talab Road, Gopi Colony, Faridabad.
4. The petitioner landlord Shri Murti Laxmi Narain Jee Wala Mandir filed a petition u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises on the ground that a rent note was executed between the parties which stipulated increase of rent every five years. It was claimed that the tenant was in arrears of rent and also that he ceased to occupy the premises in dispute since January 1988 and the premises are lying closed. It was claimed that premises in question was required for personal bona fide necessity. It was claimed that there is a big hole towards the West of the demised shop which is being used for the general public for religious purposes and the same remains insufficient for the accommodation of the public.
5. The petition was contested and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the order of ejectment on the grounds stated in the petition? OPP
2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR
3. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present petition? OPR
4. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition by his own act and conduct? OPR
5. Relief.
6. The rent was paid, thus, the ground of nonpayment of rent was held to be not available to the respondent-landlord.
7. However, the learned Courts below came to the conclusion that by way of evidence produced on record the landlord-respondent has been able to prove that it needs more accommodation and it was not for the tenant to regulate the need of the landlord. The Court also came to the conclusion that the shop in dispute was closed since 1998. The Electricity connection has also been disconnected on account of nonpayment of electricity dues. It was also proved on record that the petitioner had shifted the business at Badarpur near petrol Pump, Delhi-Mathura road.
8. The plea of the petitioner that he was now running the business of property dealer in the demises premises was disbelieved in view of the positive evidence brought on record. The finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller on the question of ceased to occupy was affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority by observing as under:
So far as first ground of ceased to occupy is concerned it is proved on the file with the testimony of PW1 to PW4 that the premises in dispute is lying closed since the year 1998 and it is proved with the testimony of PW5 that electricity connection has also been disconnected and there are arrears of electricity bills for a sitar of Rs. 2,743/ - against the said connection. No doubt, simple disconnection of electricity supply does not prove the ground of ceased to occupy but in his written statement it is pleaded by the appellant-tenant that he has been paying the electricity charges regularly but he failed to place on record any such receipt of the payment of electricity bill after the said disconnection. In these circumstances, the burden to prove that his business is still continuing in the premises in dispute was heavily shifted upon the appellant-tenant but he miserable failed to discharge this burden of proof. In these circumstance, the authority (supra) 2007(1) RCR (Civil) (P&H) 821 is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Therefore, if at all the sign board is affixed outside the shop, then it does not prove that business of property dealing is still continuing in the premises in dispute. It is admitted appellant-tenant as RW2 that he has taken the permission while shifting the business of property dealing instead of Bus Service but he could not place on record any such permission. Similarly it is stated by RW3 that the business of Bus Service failed above 3-4 years ago and, therefore, the business of property dealing was started in the premises in dispute but there is no convincing evidence to the effect when RW3 does not know whether Kanhiya Property Dealer was a registered, firm or not. hi these circumstances, only one irresistible conclusion can be drawn that appellant-tenant has ceased to occupy the premises in dispute continuously for more than four months before filing the ejectment petition and thus the said ground is proved for ejectment of the appellant-tenant.
The Court also held that the landlord was best judge of the need and, therefore, the finding of bona fide personal necessity was also affirmed.
9. Mr. R.S. Sihota, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that besides these two rent petitions, which are under challenge the landlord had filed 3rd eviction petition against another tenant, though the learned trial Court had decided the same in favour of the respondent-landlord with regard to the ground of bona fide personal necessity. However, the Appellate Authority in the said case has reversed the said finding by observing that as the respondent-landlord was already in possession of a big hall apart from the other vacant space then it cannot be said that the need was bona fide. The learned Appellate Authority in the said case also observed that the demises premises was a small shop which could not accommodate more than 10-15 persons and cannot be mixed with the hall as there exists construction over the demised shop which could not be demolished easily.
10. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, was that in view of the finding in 3rd petition it has to be held that need was not bona fide. This contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted; firstly the said finding has not attained finality and is subject matter of challenge before this Court. Even otherwise it is for the landlord to see its need and it is not for the tenant to dictate the terms as to how the accommodation is to be required by the landlord.
11. It may further be noticed that in addition to bona fide need eviction of the petitioner has also been ordered on the ground of ceased to occupy.
12. The learned senior counsel merely stated that he was running business of property dealer at the said place and merely because electricity was disconnected it could not be said that the petitioner has ceased to occupy. However, it may be noticed that the learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding on ceased to occupy on the basis of available evidence as detailed above. The learned senior counsel was not able to point out any error in such finding, it is not open to this Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded unless same is said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence brought on record. No ground for interference is therefore, made out.
