High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
GIAN CHAND v. TEJINDER PAL SINGH - CR-5773-2005  RD-P&H 148 (9 September 2005)
C.R. No.5773 of 2005
DATE OF DECISION:13.12.2005
TEJINDER PAL SINGH
Present: Mr. N.S. Bawa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
S.S. SARON, J. (ORAL)
This is revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ("Act" - for short) has been filed against the order dated 22.10.2005 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar, whereby the appeal of the tenant-petitioner against the order dated 2.8.2005 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar has been dismissed.
The landlord-respondent initially filed a petition under Section 13-A of the Act, seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the ground floor of the property, as detailed in the head-note of the plaint and in the alternative, it was prayed for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner in terms of Section 13 of the Act.
During the pendency of the petition, the ground for seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner under Section 13-A of the Act was not pressed and the claim was pressed only for seeking ejectment under Section 13 of the Act. The ground taken for seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner by the landlord-respondent was that he required the demised premises for his own use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller, vide her order dated 2.8.2005 accepted the contentions of the landlord-respondent and ordered ejectment of the tenant-petitioner.
Aggrieved against the said order, the tenant - petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also vide her order dated 22.10.2005 upheld the findings reached at by the learned Rent Controller. The order of the Appellate Authority as already noticed, is assailed in this petition.
Learned counsel appearing for the tenant-petitioner submits that the need of the landlord-respondent is not bona fide and it is mere a desire as distinguished from need which is required to be established. Besides, it is contended that the landlord-respondent has only in the cross-examination stated that the tenanted premises are required for running an automobile business.
Therefore, it cannot be said that his need for residing there was genuine.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in the same. The Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority on appreciation of the evidence and material on record, have held that the requirement of the landlord-respondent is genuine.
Therefore, this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is not to dislodge the concurrent findings reached at by the authorities below. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh AIR 2003 SC 623 has observed that the object of conferring revisional jurisdiction on the High Court, by sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act, is to enable it for satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of an order made by the Controller or the proceedings before him. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the Act, it was held is confined to testing the legality or propriety of order or proceedings of the Controller. Simply because a different Judge of a court of facts could have been persuaded to change opinion and draw a different inference from the same set of facts is not the jurisdiction of a revisional authority to upset a pure finding of fact. The High Court, it was observed need not be solicitous and venture in suggesting what would be more appropriate for the landlord to do. In respect of the said case it was observed was an appropriate case where the High Court ought not to have interfered with the findings of the fact arrived at by the two authorities below and that too concurrently, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction simply because it was inclined to have a different opinion.
In the case in hand, keeping in view the conclusions reached at by both the authorities below, it cannot be said that the need of the landlord- respondent is not bona fide. The learned Appellate Authority has observed that the need of the landlord-respondent is evident from this aspect that he does not own or possess any other residential or non-residential building. It was observed that the landlord-respondent has retired from the Government service and he intends to start his own business. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the concurrent findings reached at by the authorities below.
At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the tenant-petitioner may be granted time to vacate the demised premises.
It is submitted that in fact the petitioner himself has filed an ejectment petition against his tenant and an order of ejectment has been passed against his tenant.
However, second appeal i.e. RSA No.2151 of 1987 filed by the tenant of the petitioner is pending in this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner may be granted some time to vacate the demised premises and in the meanwhile, pursue the appeal also. I find the request of the tenant-petitioner to be reasonable. Accordingly, it would be just and appropriate to grant 8 months time to the tenant-petitioner to vacate the demised premises.
Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. However, the order of ejectment shall not be executed for a period of 8 months from today i.e.
upto 14.08.2006. This shall, however, be subject to the condition that the tenant- petitioner tenders all the arrears of rent due to the landlord-respondent and he continues to do so by the tenth of each month till the shop is vacated. Besides, he shall also furnish an undertaking before the Rent Controller to the effect that he shall hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord-respondent within the aforesaid period of 8 months.
December 13,2005 ( S.S. Saron )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.