High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Jasjit Singh @ Raju Kalsi. v. Sat Pal. - CR-4293-2005  RD-P&H 12440 (12 December 2006)
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Civil Revision No.4293 of 2005.
Date of decision:12.12.2006.
Jasjit Singh @ Raju Kalsi.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Aggarwal.
Present: Mr.Jaspal Singh Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Manjul Sud Advocate for the respondent.
S. N. Aggarwal, J.
Sat Pal respondent is the owner of the shop in dispute in which the petitioner was inducted as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.350/-. He filed the ejectment petition against the petitioner on the ground that he needed the shop for his son Sandip Kumar who was unemployed and who wanted to set up the business of fruit and vegetables in the said shop. The same was located on the main Phagwara road adjoining the locality of Pur Hiran Mohalla. It was Civil Revision No.4293 of 2005.
averred that one shop was in possession of Ravinder Kumar tenant. The other was in possession of Ashok Kumar and the third shop was being run by his son Dushyant Kumar since 1999. He never vacated any shop. Therefore, he required the shop for his personal necessity.
The version of the petitioner was that the petition was barred by the principles of res judicata. The respondent was the owner of four adjoining shops. The petition was bad for non joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was submitted that the rate of rent was Rs.200/- per month which was increased by way of compromise to Rs.350/-. Thereafter rent is being paid regularly to the respondent. The respondent again wanted to increase the rent. The petitioner had paid the rent upto November, 2002 along with interest etc. It was denied if the respondent required the shop in dispute for his personal use or for his son Sandip Kumar. Out of four adjoining shops, two are in possession of the respondent and his son where they are running a Karyana shop jointly. Another tenant Ashok Kumar has vacated the shop in dispute about two years back. Said Sandip Kumar was employed in Mahavir Spinning Mills, Hoshiarpur.It was also alleged that the respondent used to harass him by filing ejectment petitions on one pretext or the other and the rate of rent was increased by the respondent. The dismissal of petition was prayed.
Issues were framed.
The parties led the evidence.
Civil Revision No.4293 of 2005.
The learned Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition vide order dated 11.6.2004 and directed the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the respondent.
The petitioner filed an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority up-held the findings of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 25.7.2005.
Hence, the present petition.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before the learned Appellate Authority for permission to lead additional evidence but the said application was not decided and,therefore, his case has been materially affected. It was further submitted that the petitioner wanted to produce evidence to show that Sandip Kumar for whose benefit the respondent needed the shop in dispute was not unemployed. Rather, he was serving in Mahavir Spinning Mills. It was further submitted that he wanted to produce additional evidence to show that one shop in which Ashok Kumar was the tenant has been vacated by him and,therefore, the respondent/landlord did not require the premises in dispute for use and occupation by his son Sandip Kumar. The said application remained undecided while the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority.
This submission has been considered. It has no merit.
Civil Revision No.4293 of 2005.
The application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was duly considered by the learned Appellate Authority in para No.21 of the impugned judgment dated 22.7.2005 in which it was held that the petitioner had filed an application for permission to adduce additional evidence to show that Sandip Kumar for whose personal use the shop in question was required to be got vacated was already employed in Mahavir Spinning Mills. Detailed discussion was held in this order and the application was held as not maintainable and it was held that the same was filed with the intention to delay the disposal of the ejectment proceedings. Even other arguments were considered by the learned Appellate Court in para No.26 of the judgment that the shop in which Ashok Kumar was the tenant and which was got vacated by the respondent on 7.8.2004 was occupied by Dushyant Kumar,son of the respondent before dismissing the appeal.
Therefore, there is no force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the application for additional evidence filed by the petitioner was not considered and disposed of by the learned Appellate Authority.
The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that one shop was already in possession of Dushyant Kumar and the other was vacated by Ashok Kumar tenant for which copy of order dated 7.8.2004 passed by the Lok Adalat was placed on the record as Annexures P-2 and P-3. It was further submitted that one Civil Revision No.4293 of 2005.
shop has been sold, by the respondent vide sale deed dated 27.2.2006 to one Narinderjit son of Tara Ram. A copy of that sale deed was placed on the file as Annexure P-4. Hence, it was submitted that the respondent did not require any shop.
It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the shop which was in possession of Ashok Kumar tenant was got vacated for the purpose of his son Dushyant Kumar and,therefore, the shop in dispute was still required by the respondent for settling his son Sandip Kumar. It was further submitted that Dushyant Kumar had suffered losses. A copy of the Bank account was placed on the file according to which Dushyant Kumar had Bank account number 8028 in Union Bank of India, Pur Hiran and he had deposited the amount of Rs.10,000/- on 9.3.2006 and another amount of Rs.50,000/- on the same date and another amount of Rs.13,942/- on 10.4.2006 for the repayment of debts outstanding against him. It was submitted that since a huge amount was outstanding against Dushyant Kumar,therefore, the respondent had to sell one shop to clear off the debts of Dushyant Kumar.
The case of the respondent right from the beginning was that he required the shop in dispute for settling his son Sandip Kumar who intended to run the business of fruits and vegetables. It was specifically pleaded that the shop in dispute was most suitable as it was located on the main Phagwara road adjoining the locality of Pur Hiran Civil Revision No.4293 of 2005.
After the evidence was led by both the parties, it was held by the trial Court that the respondent required the shop in dispute for the aforesaid purpose and the requirement of the landlord was genuine and was proved. The learned Appellate Court also up-held the findings of fact recorded by the learned Rent Control.
The settled law is that the need of an unemployed dependent son of the landlord is also the need of the landlord himself.
Since Sandip Kumar is un-settled and unemployed son of the respondent and since the respondent wants to settle his son Sandip Kumar in the said shop and intends to run the business of fruits and vegetables in the shop in dispute, therefore, the case set up by the respondent is genuine and proper and could not be disbelieved.
There is nothing wrong in the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. There is no merit in the present and the same is dismissed.
December 12,2006. ( S. N. Aggarwal )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.