Girdhari Lal Vs Vinod Kumar Mittal

Alok Singh, J.@mdashLandlord has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 17.3.2010 thereby allowing the appeal filed by the tenant (Respondent herein), dismissing the eviction petition filed by the landlord (Petitioner herein).

2. The brief facts of the present case are that Petitioner-landlord has filed eviction petition against the Respondent � tenant on the ground that landlord requires shop under the tenancy of the tenant for his personal use and occupation to settle his unemployed son and to settle himself in a business, since landlord-Petitioner stood retired from the post of Executive Engineer Electricity, Defence Services. Tenant has refuted the claim of the Petitioner-landlord. Initially vide judgment and order dated 18.3.2006 passed by Rent Controller Hoshiarpur, eviction petition filed by the landlord was allowed directing eviction of the tenant-Respondent.

3. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment/eviction order passed by learned Rent Controller dated 18.3.2006, tenant has filed statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 2.8.2007. Tenant, thereafter, filed revision before this Court which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 17.11.2009 on the ground that application moved by the tenant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to place on record additional evidence was not considered by the Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal of the tenant. After the remand, application filed by the tenant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was dismissed, however, appeal filed by the tenant was allowed having observed that unemployed son of the landlord is settled in Italy and landlord is busy with his another son in his Karyana shop in the adjacent shop.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned Counsel for the landlord-Petitioner states that once appeal was dismissed in the first round conforming the finding of Rent Controller on the question of bonafide requirement, hence, after remand there was absolutely no new ground or evidence to allow the appeal in favour of the tenant. Learned Counsel for the landlord further states that even if his son is settled in Italy, however, need of the landlord to settle himself in a business after retirement is still there.

6. Learned Counsel for the tenant vehemently argued that since one son of the landlord is settled in Italy and another son is doing business in the adjacent shop and wife of the landlord has expired, hence, landlord has no responsibility to maintain family.

7. Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, held that Rent Controller shall proceed presuming need of the landlord as genuine and shall not proceed presuming the need of the landlord malafide. In the case in hand, it is admitted fact that landlord has retired from the post of Executive Engineer Electricity, Defence Services. Every citizen as well as retired employee has every right to settle himself independently in any business. If a retired person is intending to establish himself in a business, his need can not be denied and should not be presumed malafide merely because his one son is engaged in business and another son is settled abroad. Even if the sons of retired employees are well settled, the retired employee has every right to settle himself in independent business. Tenant has absolutely no right to dictate the landlord to be happy with income of his son who is employed in the adjacent shop. In view of this finding recorded by the Appellate Authority can not be sustained.

8. Petition is allowed.

9. Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court dated 17.3.2010 is set aside and of Rent Controller dated 18.3.2006 is restored.

10. Tenant - Mr. Vinod Kumar Mittal is present in person in the Court. On the instructions of Vinod Kumar Mittal � tenant/Respondent, Mr. Saurabh Chugh learned Counsel for the tenant-Respondent undertakes that tenant shall hand over vacant peaceful physical possession on or before 31.10.2011. He further undertakes that entire arrears of rent shall be paid within two months from today and mesne profit at the rate of agreed rent shall be paid on or before 10th day of each and every month.

11. In view of the undertaking being furnished by learned Counsel on the instruction of the tenant who is personally present in the Court, it is directed that eviction order shall not be executed till 31.10.2011 provided that tenant shall furnish an undertaking in the form of affidavit before the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur to the effect that tenant shall hand over peaceful vacant physical possession to the landlord on or before 31.10.2011 and shall pay entire arrears of rent within two months from today and shall keep on paying mesne profit on or before 10th day of each and every month. It is clarified that if no undertaking is furnished or any breach thereof is committed by the tenant, eviction order shall be executed forthwith.