Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PHOOL CHAND versus DEVINDER BERI

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Phool Chand v. Devinder Beri - CR-6696-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1909 (22 March 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision 6696 of 2005

Date of decision: 15.12.2005.

Phool Chand ...Petitioner

Versus

Devinder Beri ...Respondent

Present: RS Aulakh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

S.S. SARON, J.

This revision petition has been filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (Act for short) against the order dated 9.11.2005 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal of the tenant-petitioner against the order dated 7.6.2005 passed by the learned Rent Controller has been dismissed.

The landlady-respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner where he was a tenant @ Rs 36/- per month. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the landlady bonafidely required the shop in dispute for her own use and occupation and she was not in possession of any other shop within the urban area of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. The tenant-petitioner contested Civil Revision 6696 of 2005

the ejectment application. It was submitted that the landlady is permanently settled at Delhi along with her sons and grand sons and she does not require the shop for her own use or for her business. The learned Rent Controller, vide her order dated 7.6.2005, held the need of the landlady to be bonafide and consequently ordered the ejectment of the tenant- petitioner. The learned Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller and vide his impugned order dated 9.11.205 dismissed the appeal of the tenant-petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the landlady- respondent has the adjoining shop where she can carry on her business and even otherwise the need of the landlady is not bonafide or genuine. It is submitted that she was 63 years' old at the time of filing the ejectment petition and presently 72 years' old. Besides, she is suffering from many ailments and her health is deteriorating day by day. It is contended that at this age, the landlady would like to live with her children at Delhi and not at Ludhiana. Therefore, the ground of bonafide need has been created only as a ruse to seek ejectment of the tenant. It has come on record that the landlady started the business of hosiery by installing knitting machines on the first floor and she carried on with the said business up to 1994.

Thereafter, she shifted to Delhi as her eldest son had gone abroad for further studies and she had to shift to look after his family and his business. She now intends to come and settle permanently at Ludhiana and wants to live Civil Revision 6696 of 2005

an independent life. Besides, she wants to re-start her old business of knitting and hosiery. She also wants to start a shop of readymade garments and the demised premises are most suitable for the business which area is a commercial one. It is also found by the learned Authorities below that the first floor of the demised premises is not sufficient for her business as both her sons occasionally visit her. Besides, her younger son is in Army and his family stays with her whenever he is posted at a non-family station. It was also observed by the learned trial Court that even though the landlady was 60 years of age, yet she can start business at any stage if she is able to do it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Atma S. Berar v.

Mukhtiar Singh AIR 2003 SC 623, has observed as follows:- "The object of conferring revisional jurisdiction on the High Court, by sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act, is to enable it 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 is confined to testing the legality or propriety of order or proceedings of the Controller. So 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 need not be solicitous and Civil Revision 6696 of 2005

venture in suggesting what would be more appropriate for the landlord to do. The present one is 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." Keeping in view the above observations, merely because a different inference on the same set of facts can be drawn is not the jurisdiction of the revisional authority to upset a pure finding of fact and this Court is not to be solicitous and venture in suggesting what would be more appropriate for the landlord to do.

In view of the afore said dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also the concurrent findings recorded by both the Authorities as regards the need of the landlady, I find no ground to interfere with the same.

Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged 85 years and he would need some time to look for alternative accommodation. Therefore, he may be granted six months' time to vacate the demised premises. I find the request of the petitioner to be reasonable.

Consequently, the tenant-petitioner shall not be evicted from the demised premises for a period of six months by executing the impugned Civil Revision 6696 of 2005

order. This shall, however, be subject to the condition that the tenant- petitioner tenders all the arrears of rent and continues to do so by the 10th of

every month, till the demised premises are vacated. Besides, he files an undertaking within 15 days of the receipt of a copy of this order before the learned Rent Controller to the effect that he shall vacate the demised premises within a period of six months from today and hand over the vacant possession to the landlady-respondent.

15.12.2005. ( S.S.SARON )

ASR JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.