R.K. Bansal vs Kuljit Singh and Others

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition challenging the order dated 31.08.2010 of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby his eviction was ordered from the premises in dispute and the judgment dated 16.03.2013 of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order of eviction. Respondents had filed an eviction petition seeking ejectment of the petitioner and proforma respondents No. 5 and 6 on the ground that they were owner/landlords of SCO No. 225, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh. The petitioner is a tenant under them on the first floor of the aforesaid SCO at a monthly rent of Rs. 16,000/- excluding water, electricity, sewerage charges, property tax or any other cess or tax. Most of their relatives are living in and around Chandigarh, therefore, with a view to live near them, the respondents purchased Kothi No. 1825 in Sector 34-D, Chandigarh and started living there since November, 2002. Respondents No. 1 and 2 liked the city of Chandigarh because of quality of life and its clear environment and decided to settle down permanently in Chandigarh. They sold some of the agricultural land in district Faridkot and purchased the aforesaid SCO which comprises of basement, ground, first and second floors. The respondents have got vacant possession of the basement of the said SCO whereas its other floors are occupied by the tenants. There are many other educational institutions in the vicinity, where thousands of students throng throughout the day, and thus, there is a great scope for opening an educational institution in the SCO in question. Thus, they sought eviction of the petitioner and other tenants from the demised premises on the ground that the respondents require the demised premises for doing their business of running an educational institution.

It is the further case of the respondent-landlords that the basement portion, although vacant, cannot be used for the said business unless the other floors fall vacant. The respondent-landlords have further pleaded that without the written consent of the owner/landlords, the petitioner-tenant has sub-let front portion of the first floor to respondents No. 5 and 6 for valuable consideration. The said arrangement is secret and therefore, they do not know the amount of rent which the petitioner is charging from respondents No. 5 and 6. The said portion is having separate ingress and egress and can be locked separately, and thus, respondents No. 5 and 6 are in exclusive occupation of the front portion which has been sub-let to them, and thus, the petitioner be evicted from the demised premises.

The petitioner, in his written statement, raised various preliminary objections denying the personal need of the respondent-landlords, submitting that the respondents are agriculturists at Faridkot and Ferozepur, and they have purchased the property in question for financial gains and not for personal necessity or any commercial activity. Basement of the SCO in question is lying vacant since alleged purchase by them and no occupation has been started there. The respondents who are rustic villagers had also threatened the petitioner with dire consequences in the month of March, 2007 in case the first floor is not vacated and the petitioner had also filed a complaint with the police in this regard. The respondents had also asked the petitioner to enhance the rent till the same is not vacated. However, it was admitted that the petitioner was depositing rent @ Rs. 16,000/- per month. Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was admitted, however the petitioner denied that the respondent-landlords have purchased a house in Sector 34-D, Chandigarh and their intention is to settle down in Chandigarh and start a business. They further asserted that the ground of personal necessity is not available to the respondent-landlords as they have got vacated certain other buildings. The respondents are not well equipped to do any business or have no qualifications to initiate or start a Coaching Centre and it is not feasible that the respondents will look after their agricultural land situated in Faridkot and Ferozepur, while doing their business at Chandigarh. It is only a manipulation and wrong though of the respondents that they will initiate the Coaching Centre after getting the entire building vacated; and the said fact highlights their intention to get the premises in question vacated under the garb of personal necessity and to sell it in the market subsequently.

With regard to the ground of sub-letting, the petitioner submitted that respondents No. 5 and 6 are neither the tenants nor in possession of any part of the premises at first floor. In fact, they were employed by the petitioner, who delivered lectures on particular topics and were paid on hourly basis, and the entire premises on the first floor including cabins for the purpose of coaching for different classes for different subjects was in possession of the petitioner.

Respondent No. 5 filed separate written statement denying the grounds, as raised in the eviction petition. He stated that he was engaged by the petitioner for teaching particular subjects in his institution on trial basis about 3-4 years back, i.e. in 2005, which was much prior to the sale of demised premises by the original owners to the respondent-landlords and the said respondent visited the demised premises for 2-3 times only to deliver lectures on a particular subject. He further admitted that in sector 36-D, Chandigarh, there are many institutes providing coaching of different subjects, preparing students for various competitive examinations and in such surroundings, starting a new educational institution on a single floor is sufficient. Respondent No. 6 failed to appear despite service and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.10.2007.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

Whether the petitioners require the demised premises for their personal use and occupation? OPP

Whether the respondent No. 1 has sublet the premises to respondent No. 1 & 2? OPP

Whether the petition is not maintainable for misjoinder of parties? OPR

Whether the petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands, if so its effects? OPR

Relief.

After the parties led evidence, the Rent Controller after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record vide order dated 31.08.2010 allowed the eviction petition on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent-landlords and that the demised premises was sub-let by the petitioner to respondents No. 5 and 6.

Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller, only the petitioner-tenant filed an appeal. Upon notice, respondent-landlords had appeared. Service upon respondents No. 5 and 6 was dispensed with as respondent No. 6 had failed to contest the eviction petition and respondent No. 5 had not claimed any right or interest in the tenancy premises.

While dismissing the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner, the lower appellate Court observed as under:

From the evidence led on file, it is clear that the petitioners purchased house in Sector 34-D, Chandigarh vide sale deed dated 29.11.2002. The petitioners also sold land at Faridkot vide three sale deeds Exhibit P3 to P5 and Village Jandwal vide sale deed Exhibit P6. There is specific statement made by petitioner Kuljit Singh that the petitioners want to run an educational institute in the entire building. It is not disputed that there are many other educational institutes situated in the same market where the SCO in question is located. The petitioners placed on record photographs Exhibit P15 to P30 from where it is clear that many educational and coaching institutes are being run from various premises located in the market of Sector 36-D, Chandigarh. Once the petitioners have come out with the plea that they want to open their educational institute in the building in question, there is no question to doubt their bonafide. It is well settled that the need of the landlord is bonafide unless proved to be otherwise.

It is also well settled that it is not the requirement of law that a landlord must be well versed in the business which he wants to run in the demised premises. It is also not the requirement of the law that the petitioners themselves must teach in the institute which they want to open or impart coaching themselves to the students. Petitioners can engage teaching staff for said purpose.

Admittedly, the ground and second floors have already fallen vacant having been vacated by the tenants. One Gurdev Singh was in occupation of second floor of the SCO in question. Petition filed against him on the ground of bonafide personal necessity was allowed. The appeal filed by the tenant stands dismissed and Gurdev Singh has vacated the said floor. The respondent in the present case wants to lead additional evidence to prove that the ground floor and second floor have already fallen vacant and sufficient accommodation is available with the petitioners for starting their institute. Said additional evidence is not required by this Authority for pronouncement of this order or any other substantial cause. These are subsequent events, which this Authority can take into consideration. But vacation of ground floor and second floor of the SCO in question is of no help to the respondent No. 1.

It is not denied that it is consistent case of the petitioners that they require the entire building for running their institute. It is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and the tenant cannot ask him to confine himself to the accommodation, which he has got vacated. In the present case, the petitioners cannot be asked to open their institute on the ground floor and second floor only. Once the petitioners came with specific plea that they require the entire building, their petition for eviction against present respondent cannot be rejected for the reason that they have got vacated the other two portions. The applications for additional evidence are accordingly held to be without merit and are hereby dismissed.

As regards subletting, there is specific evidence that respondent No. 1 has sublet a portion of the tenancy premises to respondents No. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 3 has not come forward to contest the petition. Similarly, respondent No. 2 has not appeared in the witness box to deny the averments made on behalf of the petitioners. Respondent No. 1 has admitted that respondents No. 2 and 3 have been coming to the tenanted premises. He has taken the plea that the respondents No. 2 and 3 were visiting the premises only for delivery of lectures. This plea is not supported by any evidence. According to respondent No. 1, he was paying honorarium to respondents No. 2 and 3. He must have been maintaining some record of payments being made by him to the said two respondents. He has stated that he had been making payment to respondents No. 2 & 3 for lectures delivered by them and they used to be paid in cash, without any receipt being received from them. He admitted that he was maintaining account of income and expenditure. No such accounts have been produced on record. The record produced was only a note book. It is unbelievable that respondent No. 1 engaged respondents No. 2 & 3 for delivery of lectures and that they were being paid honorarium for delivering the lectures and still no record was maintained by the respondent No. 1.

The photographs also speak otherwise. Photograph Exhibit P22 shows that above the sign board of Bansal Classes and Bansal Mathematics, there was separate sign board of City Law Tutorials. There was another sign board of Dr. Kashyap. Similarly, above another sign board of respondent No. 1, there was sign board of Gurdev Physics Classes and one sign board of H. Kaur''s Maths Classes. If the respondents No. 2 & 3 were simply delivering lectures on hourly basis, there was no reason for said respondents to put up their sign boards. These sign boards can be seen in photographs Exhibit P23 and P24. The City Law Tutorials had a separate entrance, as marked in the sign board. All this evidence is sufficient to prove that respondent No. 1 parted possession of a part of the tenanted premises, which proves that he had sublet a portion of the tenanted premises to respondents No. 2 & 3.

In view of discussion made above, it is held that there is no merit in the appeal. The findings of the learned Rent Controller on various issues are hereby affirmed. The impugned order is upheld. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. The applications for additional evidence have also been dismissed. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 3,000/-. Memo of costs be prepared. Record of learned Rent Controller be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to the record room.

Still not satisfied, the petitioner-tenant has come to this Court challenging the order of his eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh on 31.08.2010 and the judgment dated 16.03.2013 of the Appellate Authority whereby his appeal against the aforesaid order of eviction has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that the respondent-landlords'' personal necessity to occupy the demised premises is for running a Coaching Centre and their need, as set out by them, is merely a wish. It has been further argued on behalf of the petitioner that the ground and second floors of the SCO in question were got vacated during the pendency of the appeals, but the same are not being used for any business or running of an educational institution by the respondent-landlords. It is stated that even the basement of the said SCO is lying vacant since purchase of the said property by the respondents and has not been put to any use, and thus, the aforesaid fact shows the real intention of the respondent-landlords as they have neither taken any steps to set up a Coaching Centre/educational institution in the said SCO, as alleged by them, nor they have any know-how and qualifications for starting such an institution. Moreover admittedly, the respondent-landlords are agriculturists and are cultivating their agricultural land in districts Ferozepur and Faridkot, and therefore, it is not possible for them to look after their land in those districts and also to run an educational institution at Chandigarh in the demised premises, and thus, the need as set out by the respondent-landlords is not genuine but merely a wish to get the property vacated for higher gains.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also challenged the findings of the authorities below with regard to sub-letting of the demised premises. It has been argued that the respondents have failed to prove parting of possession of the demised premises by the petitioner and that respondents No. 5 and 6 were in exclusive possession of the tenanted premises, as alleged. It has been argued that respondents No. 5 and 6 were only visiting Lecturers to deliver lectures on particular subjects on hourly basis and have nothing to do with the demised premises and thus, the impugned orders whereby eviction of the petitioner has been ordered on the ground of sub-letting and personal necessity of the respondent-landlords are liable to be set aside, and thus, it is prayed that the eviction petition be dismissed.

However, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, duly assisted by Mr. B.B.S. Randhawa, Advocate who appearing on behalf of the respondent-landlords, has supported the findings of the authorities below and has argued that both the grounds are proved against the petitioner. It has been further argued that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and the tenant cannot ask him to confine himself to the accommodation which he is having in his possession, and thus, the respondent-landlords cannot be asked to open the educational institution, as alleged by them, in the basement or on the other floors of the building, which have been got vacated during the pendency of the case in hand. According to learned counsel for the respondent-landlords, once a specific plea has been raised on behalf of the landlords that they require the entire building, their petition for eviction against the petitioner cannot be rejected for the reason that they have got vacated other two floors of the building during the pendency of the proceedings. It has also been argued that it is for the respondent-landlords to manage their agricultural land at Ferozepur and Faridkot while running the Coaching Centre/Educational Institution here at Chandigarh and it is none of the business of the petitioner-tenant to raise such an argument, which is not permissible to be raised.

Learned counsel for the respondents has also supported the findings of the authorities below on the ground of sub-letting and has stated that once the petitioner-tenant has admitted existence of respondents No. 5 and 6 in the premises in dispute as his employees, the onus shifted upon him to prove the fact as to in which capacity the aforesaid respondents were in possession of the demised premises; as it is well settled that arrangement of sub-letting is always a secret affair between the tenant and sub-tenant. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has miserably failed to place on record any document or evidence to show that the aforesaid respondents were ever employed by him or they were being paid as visiting lecturers.

On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the respondent-landlords has submitted that the impugned order of eviction and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, whereby appeal of the petitioner-tenant was also dismissed, are legal and the instant revision petition deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders of both the authorities below.

The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant to challenge the finding with regard to personal necessity of the respondent-landlords is liable to be rejected. There is a considerable force in the argument raised on behalf of the respondent-landlords to the effect that landlord is the best judge of his needs and tenant cannot dictate him the terms. In the instant case, the respondents have come with a specific plea that they require the entire building for setting up an educational institution in the SCO No. 225, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh, and thus, the eviction petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that they have got vacant possession of ground and second floors of the said SCO during the pendency of the case in hand. Similarly, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents have not put to use the basement of the said SCO since its purchase will not make any difference, as it is for the landlord to set up his business in his own way and the petitioner-tenant cannot force the respondent-landlords to put to use the accommodation available with them in a particular manner. It is well settled that it is not necessary for the landlord to show that he has the know-how to run a particular business or as to how he will manage his business at Chandigarh and his agricultural land at Ferozepur and Faridkot. Admittedly, the respondent-landlords have purchased a house in Sector 34-D, Chandigarh and have also shifted their family. It has also come in evidence of the respondent-landlords that they have found the quality of life in Chandigarh to their liking and have decided to settle down in Chandigarh.

So far as the challenge to the ground of sub-letting is concerned, the same is also liable to be rejected as the petitioner has admitted presence of respondents No. 5 and 6 in the demised premises as his employees but has failed to prove that those respondents were his employees. Despite the fact that he admitted in his cross-examination that he was maintaining the accounts of income and expenditure, no such accounts have been produced on record. Even the photographs placed on record would show that there were separate signboards of tutorial classes of the petitioner and that of City Law Tutorials and Dr. Kashyap i.e. respondents No. 5 and 6. If the aforesaid respondents were delivering lectures on hourly basis being employees of the petitioner, there was no reason for the said respondents to put up their signboards separately. Even the photographs would show a separate entrance for City Law Tutorials. In the presence of the aforesaid evidence and keeping in view that fact that having taken a stand that respondents No. 5 and 6 were his employees, the petitioner-tenant has failed to prove the said fact; the findings of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority cannot be interfered with in this revision petition.

The authorities below, on appreciation of evidence, have recorded a concurrent finding in favour of the respondent-landlords on both the grounds of eviction, which is supported by a voluminous evidence and the settled law; and in the absence of any material before this Court to the contrary, the well reasoned order and the judgment of the authorities below are not liable to be set aside.

No other point has been argued. This revision petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.