Ashoka Tractors and Others vs Vijay Kumar

Alok Singh, J.—Tenant has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court u/s 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act assailing the order dated 22.12.2008 passed by learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur as well as order dated 15.6.2010 passed by Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur whereby the tenant was directed to be evicted from the demised property (shop) on the ground that landlord requires demised property to establish his son Jatin Kumar Malhotra in the business.

The brief facts of the present case inter alia are that landlord has filed eviction petition against the tenant on the ground that landlord is practicing Income Tax Advocate and is running office adjacent to the Shop in question; son of the landlord Jatin Kumar Malhotra met with an accident while studying in Punjab University and incapacitated to move properly; Jatin Kumar Malhotra son of landlord could pass the examination of LLB with the help of writer because he can not write himself after the accident; it has further been contended that since demised shop is adjacent to the shop of the landlord wherein landlord is running his office and is also adjacent to the house, hence, it would be appropriate and convenient for the handicapped son Jatin Kumar Malhotra to run his business in the demised property.

Tenant has refuted the claim of the landlord saying landlord has open space adjacent to the shop in question where landlord''s son can easily start his business. It has further been contended by the tenant that landlord has absolutely no need of demised shop.

Learned Rent Controller vide order dated 22.12.2008 allowed the eviction petition. Order of the learned Rent Controller was challenged before the Appellate Authority by the tenant. It has been argued before learned Appellate Court that during the pendency of the appeal father of the landlord Sh. G.D. Malhotra has expired and portion of the property in his possession is made available to establish the business of Jatin Kumar Malhotra therein. Learned Appellate Court did not find favour with the Appellant and dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 15.6.2010.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the tenant vehemently argued that Jatin Kumar Malhotra son of the landlord is practicing law, hence, he has absolutely no need to start business in the demised premises. It has further been argued by learned Counsel for the tenant-revisionist that during the pendency of the appeal father of Sh. Vijay Kumar Malhotra- landlord, Sh. G.D. Malhotra had expired who was also doing law practice in adjacent another shop, hence, the area in the possession of Sh. G.D. Malhotra is available to start business by Jatin Kumar Malhotra. According to learned Counsel, landlord can otherwise construct the shop in the open space adjacent to demised premises. Learned Counsel for the tenant has further contended that landlord has sold other two commercial properties in favour of the tenant-revisionist, had there been any need landlord would have not sold the commercial properties to the tenant. Learned Counsel for the tenant has further argued that Jatin Kumar Malhotra has not been examined to prove that he wants to establish himself in the demised property to run business therein. He further states that his disability is also not proved.

In the opinion of this Court neither tenant nor Rent Controller can dictate the terms to the landlord as to how landlord should establish himself in another alternate property. Landlord is the best judge of his requirement. Moreover, once need of the landlord is found to be genuine and bonafide then tenant has absolutely no right to suggest to the landlord to establish his son to start business in the place where his grand father was running law office, in view of the fact now entire area of law office is being used by the landlord for law office since landlord is practicing advocate. Moreover, it is not proper on the part of the tenant to suggest the landlord that landlord should construct shop in the open space adjacent to the demised premises and to establish his son there to start business.

In the present case need of the landlord seems to be genuine, bonafide, pressing and can not be said to be malafide.

In the opinion of this Court, non-examination of Jatin Kumar Malhotra is not fatal. This Court in the matter of Mahesh Chand v. Firm Hindu Khandan Mustarka Kripa Ram and Sons 2006 (1) RCR 420 has held that non-examination of the son of the landlord for whose bonafide need eviction is being sought is not fatal if evidence allowed by the landlord is sufficient to prove the need of son. Question of physical disability shall be immaterial once need to establish the son in the demised premises is found to be bonafide.

Dismissed.