- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Megh Raj Petitioner v. Deepak Garg & Another S
Factual and Procedural Background
This revision petition arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated by landlord Deepak Garg against tenant Megh Raj and his son Chander Parkash (alleged sub-tenant) under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The landlord sought ejectment on grounds of subletting and bonafide requirement of the demised shop for running a jewellery business. While the landlord-tenant relationship was undisputed, the tenant contested the grounds, alleging that the son was assisting in the business and that the landlord’s family had other shops for jewellery business. The Rent Controller found no proof of subletting but upheld the landlord’s bonafide requirement and ordered ejectment. The tenant and sub-tenant’s joint appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The tenant then filed this revision petition challenging the ejectment order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the landlord’s bonafide requirement of the demised shop for carrying on the jewellery business was established sufficiently to justify ejectment of the tenant.
- Whether the landlord’s later enrollment and practice as an Advocate affects the validity of the ejectment order based on personal necessity.
- Whether the tenant’s revision petition constitutes an abuse of the court’s process.
Arguments of the Parties
Tenant's Arguments
- The tenant contended that the landlord’s ground for ejectment on bonafide requirement was no longer valid because the landlord had enrolled as an Advocate and was practicing in Civil Courts, Gurgaon.
- The tenant also alleged that the landlord’s son was assisting him in the business, implying no subletting or personal necessity for ejectment.
Landlord's Arguments
- The landlord maintained that the ejectment petition was filed well before his enrollment as Advocate, and his subsequent legal practice does not negate the bonafide requirement of the demised shop for jewellery business.
- It was argued that the landlord could not be expected to remain unemployed during the pendency of the case and that the bonafide requirement was also for the business run by his father.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the timing and substance of the landlord’s enrollment as an Advocate, noting that the ejectment petition was filed five years prior to the revision petition and the landlord’s enrollment. The Court reasoned that it was reasonable for the landlord to seek alternative means of livelihood during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings, and this did not invalidate his bonafide requirement of the demised shop. The Court also observed that no evidence was presented to show that the landlord had a flourishing legal practice, and the Rent Controller had decided the ejectment after the alleged enrollment date, yet no attempt was made to challenge the landlord’s necessity ground during the proceedings. The Court found the landlord’s bonafide requirement for running the jewellery business, including for the landlord’s father, to be well-established and supported by evidence. The concurrent findings of the lower authorities on this point were held to be reasonable and free from any legal infirmity. Furthermore, the Court viewed the tenant’s filing of the revision petition after the dismissal of a similar petition by his own son as an abuse of the judicial process, warranting imposition of exemplary costs.
Holding and Implications
The revision petition is dismissed in limine with costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the petitioner.
The direct effect of this decision is the upholding of the ejectment order against the tenant on the ground of the landlord’s bonafide requirement of the demised property. The Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower authorities. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the judgment reinforces the principle that subsequent changes in the landlord’s occupation do not negate a previously established bonafide necessity for ejectment. The decision also underscores the Court’s stance against abuse of process through repetitive or frivolous litigation.
L.N Mittal, J. (Oral):— This is revision petition by tenant Megh Raj under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short, the Act), after the tenant failed before both the Authorities below.
2. Deepak Garg-respondent No. 1 herein - landlord filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act against the petitioner-tenant and his son Chander Parkash (respondent No. 2 herein - alleged sub-tenant) seeking their ejectment from the demised shop. Ejectment was sought on two grounds i.e subletting by tenant-petitioner herein in favour of respondent No. 2 and bonafide requirement of the demised property by the landlord for carrying on business of jewellery.
3. Relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner herein and respondent No. 1 herein was not disputed. However, grounds of subletting and personal necessity of the landlord were controverted. It was pleaded that respondent No. 1 being son of the tenant was assisting him in the business. It was also pleaded that father of the landlord was working as jeweller in a different shop. The demised shop has been purchased to sell it for a higher amount after getting it vacated. Two other shops have been purchased by the father of the landlord in the name of his other son Amit and the said shops are being used by the father of the landlord. Various other pleas were also raised.
4. Learned Rent Controller, Gurgaon vide impugned judgment dated 14.02.2011 held that subletting was not proved, but held the bonafide requirement of the landlord to be proved and ordered ejectment of the tenant on this ground. Appeal against the said judgment preferred jointly by both the tenant and sub-tenant has been dismissed by learned Appellate Authority vide impugned judgment dated 04.06.2011 Feeling aggrieved, tenant has filed this revision petition.
5. Along with revision petition, tenant has also moved CM No. 25676-CII of 2011 for additional evidence to prove that the landlord has been enrolled as Advocate w.e.f 14.03.2009 and is practicing in Civil Courts, Gurgaon, vide certificate Annexure A-1 issued by Bar Association, Gurgaon.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
7. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner contended that respondent No. 1-landlord has since started practice as Advocate in Civil Courts, Gurgaon and, therefore, ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the demised shop on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord for running jewellery business cannot be sustained.
8. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but the same cannot be accepted. The ejectment petition was filed on 12.04.2007 i.e five years ago. The landlord knew that actual ejectment would come after years. Consequently he could not be expected to sit idle and unemployed during this long period. Had he not started any other avocation, he would have starved. He could not be expected to beg, borrow or steal or to live on the mercy of others to keep his soul and body together during this long period. Merely, because in the meantime, the landlord got himself enrolled as Advocate and also might have started practice as an Advocate at Gurgaon, it does not dis-entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant from the demised shop on the ground of his personal necessity.
9. Even by way of additional evidence, it is not sought to be proved that the landlord has flourishing or at least satisfactory practice as Advocate. Moreover, Rent Controller decided the ejectment petition vide judgment dated 14.02.2011 i.e almost two years after the landlord was allegedly enrolled as an Advocate. However, no effort was made during pendency of the ejectment petition to establish this fact nor it was sought to be established in appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, even assuming that landlord has got himself enrolled as Advocate, ejectment order on the ground of necessity of landlord cannot be set aside on this ground.
10. It has come in evidence that father of the landlord is running jewellery shop in a rented shop under Punjab Wakf Board. Tenant has also admitted in the witness box that landlord has experience in the business of jewellery. Consequently bonafide requirement of the landlord for running business of jewellery is fully established. It is not only his requirement but also requirement of his father to run the business of jewellery. Concurrent finding recorded by the Authorities below in this regard does not suffer from any infirmity, much less perversity, impropriety, illegality or jurisdictional error nor the same is based on misreading and misappreciation of evidence. On the contrary, the said finding is the only reasonable finding that can be arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record. So the said finding does not warrant any interference.
11. It is also worth mentioning that petitioner's own son Chander Parkash alleged sub-tenant also filed CR No. 4209 of 2011 challenging the same judgments of the Authorities below. The said revision petition was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 26.07.2011 but nine months' time was granted for vacating the demised shop. The petitioner herein who is none else but real father of Chander Parkash, both having cordial relations, has filed this separate revision petition and is also pressing the same in spite of order dated 26.07.2011 passed in revision petition preferred by petitioner's own son who was allegedly assisting the petitioner in running the business in the demised shop.
12. It is thus manifest that the instant revision petition is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. It is also highly significant to notice that this revision petition has been filed on 02.09.2011 i.e after dismissal of the revision petition filed by the petitioner's son. Consequently petitioner herein has to be subjected to exemplary cost to curb such frivolous litigation which is nothing but grave abuse of process of the Court resulting in wastage of precious time of the Court.
13. The revision petition is thus found to be meritless and frivolous and is, therefore, dismissed in limine with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of this Court within one month from today failing which the case shall be listed for this purpose.
Alert