Santosh Kumar v. Pritam Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision.:28.03.2025 Santosh Kumar .....Pe22oner Vs.

Pritam Singh .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for the peoner.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoner herein was tenant-respondent before learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana. Peon under Secon 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restricon Act, 1949 as filed by the landlord Pritam Singh (respondent herein), seeking ejectment of the tenant Santosh (pe

oner herein) from the demised shop described in head-note of the peon, was allowed by learned Rent Controller vide order dated 30.04.2019, mainly on the ground of bona fide necessity of the landlord. The said ejectment order as passed by the Rent Controller was upheld by learned Appellate Authority, in the appeal filed by the tenant-peoner herein, by way of order dated 31.01.2025, thus dismissing his appeal.

2.

Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the peoner-tenant that Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record correctly. Learned counsel has contended that only move of the landlord was to enhance the rent and he did not have the genuine necessity for the demised shop. Learned counsel has referred to the document Ex.RZ, which was produced by the tenant in

-2his evidence. Ex.RZ was a copy of compromise, which was effected in a rent peon filed by the landlord against another tenant namely M/s Om Trading Company and as per the said compromise, the landlord had made the statement that the ground of personal necessity for his daughter Sukhjit Kaur was taken to put pressure upon the tenant to recover arrears of rent. Learned counsel contends that the conduct of the tenant as evident from this compromise Ex.RZ, though effected in another ejectment peon, reveal that he simply wanted to put pressure upon the tenant to increase the rent and did not require the demised premises for his genuine necessity.

3.

This Court has considered submissions of learned counsel and has carefully gone through the orders as passed by learned Rent Controller and as affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

4.

It has been correctly noced by the Appellate Authority that compromise Ex.RZ had been effected by the landlord with another tenant M/s Om Trading Company because ejectment in that case was sought for the bona fide necessity of the widowed daughter of the landlord and as necessity had come to an end, so the compromise was effected and for this reason, no inference can be drawn that in the present case, landlord did not require the demised shop for his bona fide necessity. 5.

It is also contended by learned counsel for the peonertenant that landlord had not given details of all the properes. The said contenon was also duly considered by the learned Appellate Authority and it was found that landlord had clearly stated himself to be owner of the main property i.e. B-29-52, of which the demised shop was a part. The tenant had u<erly failed to produce any evidence that except the aforesaid property bearing B-29-52, of which the demised shop is a part, the landlord was owner or in occupaon of any other property.

-36.

The evidence produced on file by the landlord and as duly discussed by the Courts below reveal that the landlord was earlier running his factory of auto parts under the name and style of M/s Avon Auto Industries. Due to medical problems, he had to close that factory, as he was advised not to do any heavy work and therefore, he wanted the demised shop to start his own business of trading of hardware in the tenanted premises a?er ge@ng it vacated from the tenant. Once the cogent evidence has been produced by the landlord in this regard, tenant cannot dictate to the landlord, as to whether he should indulge in the said business or not. The tenant has failed to produce any cogent evidence to rebut the bonafide need of the landlord.

7.

On account of the enre discussion as above, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, holding the peoner-tenant liable to be ejected from the demised shop on account of bona fide necessity of the landlord.

No merits. Dismissed.

All the miscellaneous applicaon(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE March 28, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No