Respondent Kulwant Kaur filed a petition under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of the revision petitioner from the ground floor and basement area of SCF No.22, Phase-X, SAS Nagar, Mohali on the ground of arrears of rent and personal bona fide necessity for the settlement of her daughter namely Surinder Sidhu, who was married to an Army Officer, who died in insurgency. After the death of her husband, Ms. Surinder Sidhu had been residing with respondent along with her two children i.e. a son and a SACHIN MEHTA 2015.01.06 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh daughter. She was B.Ed. and post-graduate in English and was working as Teacher at Guru Nanak Public School, Chandigarh. She intended to live separate with her children after hiring a house on rent and in order to supplement her income, wanted to start a coaching centre of English subject imparting training for IELTS and also to start classes for science subject with the assistance of her daughter, who was final year student of Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh at the time of filing of the petition. The demised premises being ground floor and basement were more suitable for running a Coaching Centre as compared to the remaining portion of the SCF.
It was alleged by the respondent that the tenancy was to commence under the rent agreement dated 16.10.2008, w.e.f. 01.12.2008 for a period of five years and the rent was settled as follows:- 1.12.08 to 30.11.2009 Rs.80,000/- per month 1.12.09 to 30.11.2010 Rs.84,800/- per month 1.12.10 to 30.11.2011 Rs.89,888/- per month 1.12.11 to 30.11.2012 Rs.95,282/- per month 1.12.12 to 30.11.2013 Rs.1,00,999/- per month.
The revision petitioner-tenant, in the written statement, denied the rate of rent and settlement of any terms of rent vide rent agreement dated 16.10.2008. He alleged that the rate of rent was orally settled as `40,000 per month + water and electricity charges. The rent upto April, 2009 had already been paid vide cheques and thereafter the respondent refused to accept the cheques. The requirement of the demised premises for the personal bona fide necessity of the respondent SACHIN MEHTA 2015.01.06 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh was denied with the plea that two floors of the premises are already lying vacant which the landlady-respondent can use for the purpose of starting Coaching Centre.
The respondent reiterated her case in the re-joinder. Pleadings of the parties led to the framing of following issues:-
(1) Whether the applicant is entitled to evict respondent from the demised premises ?OPP (2) Whether the present petition is not maintainable ?OPR (3) Whether the applicant has got no cause of action to file the present petition ?OPR (4) Relief.
Rent Controller, SAS Nagar, Mohali disbelieved and discarded the rent note and accepted the plea of revision petitioner that the rate of rent was `40,000 per month and not `80,000 per month. The plea of respondent-landlady that she required the demised premises for her personal bona fide necessity to settle her widow daughter was held as bona fide and genuine. Revision petitioner was ordered to vacate the demised premises and hand over the vacant possession of the same to respondent-landlady within a period of three months from the date of order of Rent Controller.
Not satisfied, revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which was also dismissed.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that the revision petitioner is a tenant on the ground floor and basement of SACHIN MEHTA 2015.01.06 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh SCF No.22, Phase-X, SAS Nagar, Mohali. First and second floor of this premises are lying vacant. The purpose of seeking the ejectment of the revision petitioner is the requirement of daughter of respondent who wants to start a Coaching Centre in this premises and for this purpose, first and second floor are most suitable as other Coaching Centres are also running on first and second floors in that vicinity. He has further argued that as per the case of respondent herself, the premises was let out for a period of five years under the rent agreement dated 16.10.2008. Even if that agreement and term of the agreement have been denied by the revision petitioner, the respondent is bound by same and this eviction petition which has been filed after six months of the initiation of tenancy, was not maintainable as the lease, under the agreement dated 16.10.2008 was for five years. He has further argued that the husband of respondent- landlady had also sought ejectment of tenant from one another premises to start his business with the assistance of his grand son, who is none-else than the son of Surinder Kaur, daughter of respondent. This reflects that purpose of the respondent is only to get the premises vacated without any genuine personal bona fide necessity. He further argues that decision has been taken by the competent authorities of PUDA/GMADA to convert all the SCFs to shop-cum-office, as such, the respondent on conversion of the demised building into shop-cum-office can start commercial activities on its first floor and second floor, which are lying vacant.
Learned counsel appearing for the caveator-respondent while refuting the arguments of learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that Rent Controller and Appellate Authority have evaluated the SACHIN MEHTA 2015.01.06 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh personal bona fide necessity of the respondent based on the evidence on record. The contention of respondent that she wanted to settle her daughter, who has lost her husband, in the demised premises cannot be doubted. This argument that the Coaching Centre/Academy can be set up on the first and second floor of the premises which are lying vacant, cannot be accepted because the premises is shop-cum-flat and no commercial activities can be carried on the first and second floor without seeking permission to convert it as commercial building and paying the conversion charges. Moreover, the option lies with the landlord to assess the suitability of the premises for her business/vocation and the tenant has no right to guide the landlord or contest her choice of premises. Regarding the rent agreement dated 16.10.2008, learned counsel for the respondent argues that the appellant has not admitted the execution of this agreement and the Court below have also not relied upon the terms of this agreement. Once this agreement is ignored it goes with all its terms and conditions. Even otherwise, the tenancy created in favour of the appellant was statutory tenancy under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and the landlord can always seek the ejectment of the tenant on the grounds available to him under the above statute.
It is no more res-integra that the suitability of any premises for the need of the landlord is to be considered as per the convenience and choice of the landlord, who is at liberty to decide how he has to utilize his property and which property is best suited for his needs. The tenant has no role to dictate his terms in the matter. Admittedly, the demised premises with the revision petitioner was required by the respondent to SACHIN MEHTA 2015.01.06 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh settle her daughter, who lost her husband, an armymen who died in insurgency. The premises is admittedly shop-cum-flat. The first and second floors of the premises are residential. Even if, PUDA/GMADA had under some scheme allowed the conversion of shop-cum-flat(SCF) to shop-cum-office(SCO), the option lies with the owner to avail the concession given by PUDA/GMADA and certainly for the conversion of residential portion of a building into commercial, one has to pay conversion charges. It is nowhere case of the revision petitioner that respondent has either sought conversion of the SCF into SCO or PUDA/GMADA has converted all the SCF into SCO even without application of the owners. This being so, the tenant cannot expect the landlord to start commercial activities in the premises, which is not meant for commercial purposes. Even if such activities are going on in the adjoining premises, the same cannot be a precedent for the respondent to violate the terms of allotment/purchase of premises. The violation of the rules and regulations of PUDA/GMADA may invite resumption of building for its unauthorized use. Even if, this plea of petitioner be accepted that Coaching Centre can be started on the first and second floors of the premises in question, still the option lies with the landlord to select as to where the same is intended. It is the case of the landlord that the demised premises being ground floor and basement are more suitable to start a Coaching Centre as compare to the remaining portion of SCF. In view of the need and choice of the landlord, the wish/dictate of the revision petitioner that the landlord should start the Coaching Centre on the first and second floors of the building is no ground to doubt the bona SACHIN MEHTA 2015.01.06 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh fide need of the respondent-landlady.
Much stress has been put by learned counsel for the revision petitioner on the argument that as per the respondent, the premises was let out to the revision petitioner initially for a period of five years but the ejectment petition was filed six months after the start of tenancy, as such, the same is not maintainable. He has relied upon the observations in case Rajjo Vs. Jawahar Singh 2007(1) Rent Control Reporter 246 and Parveen Kumar Vs. Shiv Ram alias Sheo Ram 2000(1) RCR (Civil) The above arguments of learned counsel for the revision petitioner has been rightly declined by both the Courts below firstly on the ground that the rent agreement dated 16.10.2008 has been disputed by the revision petitioner. He has not relied upon any terms of the rent agreement including the rate of rent and the Court has also fixed the rate of rent as `40,000/- per month instead of `80,000 per month as mentioned in the rent agreement. As the revision petitioner has denied the execution of this rent agreement and the same has not been relied upon, the terms mentioned therein are not binding between the parties. The matter in the citation relied upon by learned counsel for the revision petitioner related to challenge of the consent decree. The question before the Court in that case was whether a party who suffered the decree can challenge it on the ground of non-registration and it was held that a party to the decree was barred from challenging it on the ground of non-registration and the only ground available for challenge was fraud and misrepresentation. SACHIN MEHTA 2015.01.06 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh In the present case, the revision petitioner in his written statement, has categorically denied the existence of rent agreement dated 16.10.2008, as such, he stood debarred from taking the plea that vide that agreement, he had taken the premises for a term of five years. On examining this argument from another angle, I find no legal or factual infirmity in the observation of the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority, as tenancy of revision petitioner is a statutory tenancy under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. For termination of the statutory tenancy, the landlord has to pursue and avail the remedy as provided under the aforesaid statute. The present petition was filed for the personal bona fide necessity of the respondent which existed at the time of filing of the petition and upheld by both the authorities under the Rent Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Venkateshwara Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Syeda Vajhiunnissa Begum 1994(S) SCC 671 while answering the question as to whether during subsistence of contractual tenancy, it is open to the landlord to seek eviction under the provisions of State Rent Act, held that the provisions of Rent Act would apply notwithstanding the contract.
This argument of learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the husband of respondent has also sought eviction of a tenant in his premises for his bona fide need to start business with the assistance of his grand son i.e. son of daughter of respondent, has no relevance and effect on the personal bona fide requirement of the respondent.
On perusal of the paper book, judgment of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority and the law cited by learned counsel SACHIN MEHTA 2015.01.06 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh for the parties, I find no legal or factual infirmity in the judgment under revision calling for any interference.
This revision petition has no merits. Dismissed.
( SURINDER GUPTA ) December 18, 2014. JUDGE Sachin M.
SACHIN MEHTA 2015.01.06 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh