Last Updated on July 20, 2020 by Satish Mishra
Civil Revision against Rent Appeal before High Court Chandigarh
This is a case digest of Civil Revision against Rent Appeal before High Court Chandigarh wherein the tenant lost the case against landlord for ejectment of rented premises on the premise of personal necessity and bonafide use. The landlord won the case before Rent Controller and Appellate Authority allowing the eviction of rented premises by tenant. The tenant further challenged both the orders of court before Punjab Haryana High Court Chandigarh in Civil Revision seeking reversal of both orders as they were based on erroneous ground and wrong understanding of law with appreciation of evidence. The hon’ble high court of Punjab & Haryana rejected this contention and dismissed the Civil revision as it was devoid of merits.
Also Read- Showroom of a NRI Vacated
Let’s read the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab-Haryana High Court now:
Varinder Singh & Anr vs Surinder Kaur on 18 December, 2019
In this case, the facts of the case are such that the respondents in the present case filed a petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for the tenant’s ejectment on the grounds that the petitioners are regular defaulters in making the payment for rent and never paid the rent on time. It was also claimed by the respondent that the respondent required the tenanted premises for the need of herself and her husband to start their business of boutique, to design and sell the readymade ladies and gent’s garments. The respondent further averred that the tenanted premises is more suitable for the business of boutique and the respondent obtained the vacation of the adjoining shop in order to merge the same with the tenanted premises. It was submitted that the space of both the shops would be sufficient and suitable for the proper running of the boutique business.
Also Read- Landlord Tenant Disputes Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali
This petition was contested by the petitioners by fillings written statement stating that no rent note was executed between the parties.
The rate of rent is ` 4000/- per month, which includes any house tax or any other cess or tax and the petitioners are not liable to pay any other amount. It was alleged that the respondent has not disclosed the true facts to the court that she has received an amount of ` 50,000/- through two cheques of ` 25,000/- each, as such, they have received more amount from the petitioners, which has been claimed as lump sum as ` 49,490/-.
Also Read- Frequently Asked Questions about Filing of Cases in Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh
Relying on the above findings, rent controller held that rate of rent of the tenanted premises is ` 4000/- per month and the respondent was directed to refund the excess rent paid by the petitioners @ ` 5500/- per month pursuant to the provisional order of assessment of rent, 2 of 10 while holding that under these circumstances, the ground of non-payment of rent is not available with the respondent. The Rent Controller has further held that the tenanted premises is required by the respondent herein for her bona fide necessity and directed the petitioners herein to hand over the vacant possession within a period of two months.
The findings recorded by the Rent Controller were affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority.
Also Read- Tenant’s Rights During Eviction
The orders passed by both the courts have been assailed by the petitioner by filing a civil revision under article 115 of the CPC.
It was argued by the tenant (petitioner) before the High Court that the findings of the Rent controller were regarding the issue no 1and 3 were erroneous. It was also contended that similar findings recorded by the appellate authority were erroneous and liable to be set aside. It is argued that the ingredients of Section 13 of the Act are necessary to be pleaded and in the absence thereof, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It was submitted that the respondent was having vacant portion of basement of the building in which tenanted premises is situated and this fact was not disclosed by the respondent in her petition and site plan, thus, she has concealed material facts from the court, but both the courts below have erroneously held regarding suitability of the respondent. It was also contended that even the respondent has not disclosed about vacation of shops by the tenants and re-letting of the same to another tenants during the pendency of the petition. It was stated that all these factors show that sufficient accommodations remained in possession of the respondent and if she really had the personal requirement, she must have started her business in that portion, but she did not do so.
Also Read- Permanent Temporary Injunction Suit Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali
Order/ judgment of the court
The High court observed that the respondent had not concealed any necessary facts relating to the case before the lower was appealed by the petitioner because the respondent had not denied the renting out of other properties and such properties being vacated. In this regard the High Court while agreeing with the observations of the appellate authority as well as the rent controller, says that there were no illegality in the findings returned by the lower courts.
Also Read- SC sets aside HC ruling in eviction case
The High court also rejected the argument of the petitioner that as sufficient accommodation remained in possession of the respondent and if she really had personal requirement, she could have started her business in that portion, but as she did not do so, therefore the need is not bona fide. The court observed that as rightly held by the Rent Controller, the petitioners cannot dictate terms to the respondent and that the law is settled that need of the landlady/landlord has to be seen from the angle of the landlady/landlord and not from the view point of the tenant. Even if the respondent has alternative accommodation, even then it is for the landlady it determine the suitability of the accommodation for her requirement, which is to set up a boutique. As has come on record, the basement gets waterlogged and would not be suitable. Moreover, having a boutique on the ground floor would make better business proposition than setting up a boutique in the basement.
Also Read- Paramjit Singh @ Rosy vs Paramjit Singh on 6 March, 2018
Concluding the arguments made by the petitioners in the present suit, the High court dismissed the present civil revision filed by the petitioner-tenant.
Also Read- How to Evict Tenant Out of Rented Premises
For case specific advice, please contact Rent Lawyers of Punjab Haryana High Court in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar Baltana Mullanpur etc for landlord Tenant Disputes , Rent Advice, Rent Matters in Appeal before Rent Controller Authority, Free Legal Advice related to Property Disputes, Ejectment of Tenant or forceful vacation of the rented premises by landlord.
Also Read- TENANT EVICTION PETITION BY LANDLORD IN CHANDIGARH MOHALI
This post is written by Kaustubh Kulkarni. More on 99888-17966.
