- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kewal Krishan v. Amrik Singh .
Structured Summary of the Opinion — J.S. Khehar, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent-landlord, Amrik Singh, filed an ejectment application against the petitioner-tenant, Kewal Krishan, seeking eviction on two grounds: (1) arrears of rent allegedly payable from 1.4.1996, and (2) personal necessity — that the premises were required to set up an independent business for his son, Jaspreet Singh, who was a 25‑year‑old unemployed graduate.
During proceedings before the Rent Controller the tenant tendered the arrears of rent; consequently, the landlord did not press the non-payment ground. The Rent Controller accepted the landlord's plea of personal necessity and ordered eviction by an order dated 27.3.1999, requiring the tenant to vacate within two months.
The tenant appealed to the Appellate Authority, which agreed with the Rent Controller regarding the bona fide requirement for the son and directed delivery of vacant possession within two months of its order (order dated 27.9.1999). The tenant then approached this Court challenging both the Rent Controller's order dated 27.3.1999 and the Appellate Authority's order dated 27.9.1999.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondent-landlord had established a bona fide personal necessity for eviction on the ground that the premises were required to set up a business for his son.
- Whether a landlord seeking eviction on personal necessity must specify the precise nature of the business proposed to be set up in the premises and must provide evidence of financial means or prior experience of the person for whom the premises are required.
- Whether the filing of multiple ejectment applications by the same landlord or a sale by the landlord's wife undermines the bona fides of the landlord's claim in the present ejectment application.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner-Tenant's Arguments
- The landlord had filed multiple ejectment applications (including one against M/s. General Electronics and another by his wife Harminder Kaur against M/s. Gagan Traders) in the same vicinity, which the tenant argued undermined the landlord's bona fides in seeking eviction of the petitioner.
- Harminder Kaur had sold half share in a prime commercial property (comprising 8 shops) by deed dated 24.3.1999, three days before the Rent Controller's order; the tenant contended this sale and other acts cast doubt on the landlord's genuine need.
- The landlord's ejectment application did not specify details of the business proposed for the son (no particulars or evidence of the nature of the business were furnished), relying on precedents (Joginder Singh of Amritsar v. Nand Kishore Anand; Amar Nath v. Marlan Das) to submit that a bald statement of need without particulars or cogent evidence is inadequate to prove bona fide personal necessity.
- The landlord failed to establish that he had sufficient financial means to set up the business for his son and failed to show that the son had prior experience in the business of electronic goods.
Respondent-Landlord's Arguments
- The landlord relied on a Supreme Court decision (Raj Kumar Khaitan v. Bibi Zubaida Khatun, AIR 1995 SC 576) which held that it was not necessary for a landlord to indicate the precise nature of the business he intended to start in premises claimed for personal necessity.
- The landlord relied on another Supreme Court decision (Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkune, 1999 1 RCR 508) to argue that absence of prior experience of the person for whom a premises is required does not necessarily indicate lack of bona fides; experience is not a pre-condition to starting a business.
- Evidence was led: the landlord and his son gave testimony that the son was about 25 years old, unmarried, unemployed and had obtained a Bachelor's degree in Commerce; the tenant admitted during cross-examination that the landlord was a man of means. These facts were relied on to substantiate bona fide personal necessity and the landlord's ability to establish the business for his son.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Joginder Singh of Amritsar v. Nand Kishore Anand, 1984 HRR 87 | Authority where this Court rejected a landlord's claim where no details of the business were given in the ejectment application and no evidence was furnished to prove the landlord's want to set up a business. | The petitioner relied on this case to argue insufficiency of particulars. The Court noted the decision but did not treat it as controlling in the face of contrary Supreme Court authority and the evidence in the present case. |
| Amar Nath of Hoshiarpur v. Marlan Das, 1985 HRR 104 | Held that in proceedings under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, cogent evidence is required as to the particular business the landlord intends to do; a bald statement is inadequate. | The petitioner relied on this authority. The Court recorded the submission but reconciled it with later Supreme Court holdings and the factual record before it, finding the landlord's claim justified on the evidence presented. |
| Raj Kumar Khaitan v. Bibi Zubaida Khatun, AIR 1995 SC 576 | Supreme Court held that it was not necessary for landlords to indicate the precise nature of the business they intended to start in the premises; the High Court erred in requiring such particulars. | The Court relied on these observations to conclude that it is not incumbent upon the landlord to specify the precise business sought to be set up. This authority weighed heavily in rejecting the tenant's contention that lack of particulars alone defeated the landlord's plea. |
| Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkune, 1999 1 RCR 508 | Supreme Court observation that lack of prior experience of a person proposing to start a business is not a valid ground to infer absence of bona fides; experience is not a pre-condition to start a business. | The Court applied this principle to reject the tenant's submission that the landlord must prove the son's prior experience; the opinion accepted that inexperience does not vitiate bona fide necessity. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the record and proceeded step-by-step as follows:
- Grounds advanced and waiver: The rent-arrears ground had been effectively abandoned when the tenant tendered the arrears before the Rent Controller; thus the only contested ground was personal necessity for the landlord's son.
- Findings below: The Rent Controller accepted the landlord's personal‑necessity plea (order dated 27.3.1999) and the Appellate Authority endorsed that conclusion (order dated 27.9.1999), directing the tenant to vacate within two months.
- Multiplicity of proceedings and sale: The tenant pointed to other ejectment applications filed by the landlord and an application by the landlord's wife, as well as a sale by the landlord's wife shortly before the Rent Controller's order, to impugn bona fides. The Court analyzed these points and held that: a landlord may claim eviction in respect of as many premises as he desires; each claim must be evaluated on its own evidence; the wife's ejectment application related to property owned by her and must be judged on its own plea; and the Appellate Authority had considered the sale by the wife and found it had no effect because the sold shops were under occupation by tenants. The Court found this conclusion reasonable and justified.
- Legal standards on particulars and evidence: The Court considered conflicting authorities. While earlier decisions (Joginder Singh, Amar Nath) emphasized the need for particulars and cogent evidence, the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Khaitan held that it was not necessary for a landlord to indicate the precise nature of the business he intended to start. The Court accepted the Supreme Court's view that precise particulars were not mandatory.
- Financial means and experience: The tenant argued the landlord had to prove sufficient means and that the son needed prior experience. The Court observed the tenant himself admitted the landlord was a man of means; therefore financial capability could be presumed from that admission. On the experience point the Court followed the Supreme Court's observation in Dattatraya Laxman Kamble that requiring prior experience as a pre-condition is an unrealistic standard and that inexperience does not prove lack of bona fides.
- Evidential record: The landlord and his son both testified. The son was shown to be about 25 years old, unmarried, unemployed and a Bachelor of Commerce. The Court found these facts, together with the tenant's admission as to the landlord's means, to substantiate the landlord's claim of bona fide personal necessity.
- Conclusion of reasoned application: Applying the relevant legal principles to the factual record, the Court concluded that the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority had correctly found bona fide personal necessity and that those conclusions were fully justified on the evidence and law.
Holding and Implications
Holding:
DISMISSED. The petition challenging the orders of the Rent Controller dated 27.3.1999 and the Appellate Authority dated 27.9.1999 was dismissed. No costs were awarded. The appeal was dismissed.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The orders directing the tenant to deliver vacant possession (as earlier determined by the Rent Controller and endorsed by the Appellate Authority) stand; the tenant's challenge has failed.
- Scope of precedent: The Court applied Supreme Court authorities to hold that a landlord need not specify the precise nature of the business sought to be established in the premises, and that lack of prior experience of the person for whom the premises are sought is not dispositive of bona fides. The decision affirms the application of those principles to the facts of this case.
- No broader or new legal principle was formulated by this opinion beyond the application of existing authorities; the Court limited itself to applying established precedent and the evidential findings below to dismiss the petition.
This summary is derived exclusively from the content of the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond the text.
J.S Khehar, J.:— Amrik Singh, respondent-landlord, filed ejectment application against Kewal Krishan, petitioner-tenant, seeking his eviction on two grounds; firstly, it was alleged that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent w.e.f 1.4.1996 and secondly, it was alleged that the premises was required to set up an independent business for his son, Jaspreet Singh, who was a Graduate of 25 years and was unemployed.
2. The arrears of rent were tendered by the petitioner-tenant during the proceedings before the Rent Controller, whereafter the respondent-landlord did not press his claim on account of the plea based on non-payment of rent. The plea based on the requirement of the premises for the personal use of his son was accepted by the Rent Controller vide order dated 27.3.1999 The petitioner-tenant was resultantly required to vacate the premises within two months of the order passed by the Rent Controller.
3. Dissatisfied with the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority as a matter of fact arrived at the conclusion that the respondent-landlord had fully substantiated his bona fide claim based on the requirement of his son. The Appellate Authority while endorsing the determination rendered by the Rent Controller on issue No. 2, required the petitioner-tenant to deliver the vacant possession of the shop in question to the respondent-landlord within a period of two months of his order.
4. The petitioner-tenant has approached this Court impugning the order of the Rent Controller, dated 27.3.1999 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 27.9.1999
5. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant is that Amrik Singh, respondent-landlord, filed an ejectment application on 27.8.1999 against M/s. General Electronics seeking eviction of another tenant in the close vicinity of the shop leased out to the petitioner-tenant. In the said application, one of the grounds seeking the eviction was that the said premises was required by the respondent-landlord to set up his own business. The aforesaid petition filed by the landlord against M/s. General Electronics was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide order dated 19.1.1999 The ejectment application against the petitioner-tenant was filed on 21.4.1998 In the instant rent application, it was claimed that the premises was required by the respondent-landlord for setting up an independent business for his son. The present C.R No. 5801 of 1999 is the outcome of the ejectment application filed on 2, 1.4.1998 A third ejectment application is stated to have been filed by Harminder Kaur, wife of the respondent-landlord Amrik Singh on 11.5.1999 against M/s. Gagan Traders. In the said ejectment application, eviction has been sought in respect of a premises in the same vicinity as the premises leased out to the petitioner. One of the grounds raised for seeking eviction in the ejectment application filed by Harminder Kaur is that the premises is required by her for her own use and occupation i.e for running business of Food and Nutrition Fruit and Vegetables preservation as she is a certificate holder in Industrial Entrepreneurship Course conducted by the Small Industrial Services Institute. It is further submitted that Harminder Kaur, wife of the respondent-landlord Amrik Singh sold half share in a commercial property in Bharatnagar Chowk, which is a prime locality in Ludhiana, which comprises of 8 shops by sale deed dated 24.3.1999, (three days before the passing of the order by the Rent Controller). The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant on a cumulative assessment of the facts, narrated above, has contested the conclusions drawn by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority in respect of the bona fides of the respondent-landlord's desire to get the premises vacated for his own use and occupation.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is indeed impressive on first blush. However, when examined closely, it is certainly devoid of merit. In this behalf, my conclusions are based on the following reasons.
7. A landlord has the right to claim eviction in respect of as many buildings/shops as he desires. His claim is to be evaluated on the basis of evidence and if found tenable/justified, his claim may be upheld in respect of one or more buildings/shops. While evaluating the claim of the respondent-landlord Amrik Singh in the first ejectment application filed by him on 27.8.1997 against M/s. General Electronics, the Rent Controller did not accept his claim and accordingly, the said ejectment application was dismissed on 19.1.1999 The third ejectment application filed by Harminder Kaur, wife of the respondent-landlord Amrik Singh undoubtedly has to be evaluated on the basis of her requirement, if she is able to substantiate her plea on the basis of her may be upheld. The claim of Harminder Kaur is liable to be considered shorn of the consequences of other ejectment applications filed by the respondent-landlord, Amrik Singh because the ejectment application filed by Harminder Kaur is in respect of property owned by her and on the basis of her own personal necessity. So far as the sale of commercial property by Harminder Kaur in the prime locality of Ludhiana is concerned, the issue was examined extensively by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority felt that the aforesaid sale of the commercial property by Harminder Kaur, wife of the respondent-landlord Amrik Singh had no effect on the claim made by the respondent-landlord for his son Jaspreet Singh Khurana in view of the fact that all the shops in the commercial property sold by Harminder Kaur were under occupation of the tenants. In my considered view, the aforesaid conclusion besides being reasonable was fully justified.
8. On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant relied on a judgment in Joginder Singh of Amritsar v. Nand Kishore Anand . 1984 HRR 87, wherein this Court rejected the claim of the landlord on account of the fact that no details of business were given in the ejectment application nor any evidence was furnished to prove the want of the landlord to set up a business. Referring to the averments made in the pleadings of the instant case, it was stated that the landlord had merely mentioned that the landlord, required the premises for setting up business for his son. Details of business, which he proposed to set up for his son were not given. While advancing the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the petitioner, drew pointed attention of this Court to the ejectment application filed by Harminder Kaur, wife of the landlord on 11.5.1999 In the said ejectment application, she had given details of the business which she would set up and she had also given details about her ability to run the said business (details already referred to above). It is accordingly submitted that in the absence of exact particulars of the business proposed to be commenced by Jaspreet Singh Khurana in the ejectment application and in the absence of proof that he had experience to handle the same, the plea raised on account of personal necessity is liable to be dismissed in view of the aforesaid decision. To substantiate the aforesaid claim, reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant on a judgment in Amar Nath of Hoshiarpur v. Marlan Das . 1985 HRR 104, wherein it was held that in a petition filed under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, there has to be cogent evidence on record as to the particular business which the landlord intends to do. A bald statement of the landlord without any other evidence cannot be considered as adequate proof to establish a bona fide requirement.
9. As against the above submission of the learned counsel for the tenant, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord relies on a decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Khaitan v. Bibi Zubaida Khatun AIR 1995 SC 576,. Pointed attention of this Court was invited to the following observations made by the Apex Court:
“It is clear from the averments made in the above quoted paragraphs that the plaintiffs asserted that there was no other means of livelihood with them and as such they wanted to set up their own business in the premises in dispute. The High Court, however, came to the conclusion that apart from above quoted pleadings it was necessary to plead the nature of the business which the appellants-plaintiffs wanted to start in the premises. We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error. It was not necessary for the appellants landlords to indicate the precise nature of the business which they intended to start in the premises. Even if the nature of business would have been indicated nobody could bind the landlords to start the same business in the premises after it was vacated.”
10. In view of the determination of the apex Court extracted above, it is clear that if is not incumbent upon the landlord to express the precise business which is sought to be set up in the premises.
11. It would be unfair to the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant if while disposing of the instant petition, I do not notice his two other submissions. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, that it was imperative on the respondent-landlord to establish before the Rent Controller that he had sufficient means to establish the business in Electronics goods for his son. It was submitted that evidence on the aforesaid aspect is wholly lacking. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that it was also essential for the respondent-landlord to establish that his son Jaspreet Singh had earlier experience in the business of Electronic goods.
12. So far as the first contention is concerned, it has been admitted by the petitioner-tenant himself that the respondent-landlord is a man of means. He must, therefore, be deemed to have the Financial means to establish the said business for his son. In so far as the plea of previous experience is concerned, the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkune . 1999 1 RCR 508, wherein the apex Court observed as under:—
“If a person wants to start new business of his own it may be to his own advantage of acquires experience in that line. But to say that any venture of a person in the business field without acquiring past experience reflects lack of his bona fide is a fallacious and unpragmatic approach. Many a business have flourished in this country by leaps and bounds which were started by novice in the field; and many other business ventures have gone haywire despite vast experience to the credit of the propounders. The opinion of the learned single judge that acquisition of sufficient know-how is a pre-condition for even proposing to start any business, if gains approval as a proposition of law, is likely to shatter the initiative of young talents and deter new entrepreneurs from entering any field of business or commercial activity. Experience can be earned even while the business is in progress. It is too pedantic a norm to be formulated that “no experience no venture”.
13. It has to be ascertained on the basis of evidence whether or not, the plea of bona fide personal necessity has been substantiated on the basis of the evidence recorded. In this behalf, in so far as the present controversy is concerned, it is not a matter of dispute that at the time of filing of the ejectment application, son of the respondent-landlord was about 25 years old. He was unmarried and unemployed. He had already obtained Bachelor's degree in Commerce at the said juncture. The aforesaid fact was established on record by the respondent-landlord Amrik Singh, who had himself appeared as a witness and also by his son Jaspreet Singh Khurana, who had also appeared as a witness. The petitioner-tenant is stated to have admitted during the course of his cross-examination that the respondent-landlord was a person of means and on that account, it was concluded that there could be no doubt that he could with the finances available with him set up a business in electronic goods for his unemployed son, Jaspreet Singh Khurana. In view of the factual position recorded above, I have no hesitation to hold that the conclusions recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in respect of the bona fide personal necessity of the respondent-landlord are fully justified.
14. For the reasons recorded above, I have find no merit in this petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
R.M.S
Appeal dismissed.
Alert