Vijay Jain V. Ghanshyam Dass

CR/960/2014

AI Insights

The case revolves around an ejectment petition filed by Rameshwar Dass against the petitioners, Vijay Jain and another, on grounds of non-payment of rent, subletting, and personal necessity. The premises in question were initially rented to Babu Lal Jain in 1971, who later sublet it to Suresh Kumar Jain and others. After Babu Lal's death, his tenancy rights were inherited by his family. The landlord argued that the premises were needed for his son's business. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority upheld the ejectment, leading to this revision petition by the tenants, which was dismissed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 814722 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: CHETAN MITTAL; KUNAL MULWANI
• Keywords: Partnership firm; Personal necessity; Subletting; Tenancy rights; Ejectment petition; Non-payment of rent

Judgement Text

"Civil Revision No. 960 of 2014 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 960 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.2.2014. Vijay Jain and another .......Petitioners Versus Ghanshyam Dass and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. Rameshwar Dass had filed ejectment petition against the petitioners and others on the ground of non-payment of rent, subletting and personal necessity. Case of the landlord was that Babu Lal Jain (since deceased) took the premises in question on rent in the year 1971. Initially ground floor of the premises in question was let out to Babu Lal Jain but later first floor as well as the stair case were also let out to the tenant and the rent was enhanced to ` 4,000/- per year including house tax with effect from 1.4.1989. Babu Lal Jain had sublet the premises to Suresh Kumar Jain, Satish Kumar Jain and Ajay Kumar Jain about 10/12 years ago. After the death of Babu Lal Jain, his tenancy rights were inherited by his children and widow. It was further prayed by the landlord that he required the premises in question for his personal use to enable his son to run his business in the said premises. Some of the respondents in the ejectment petition Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.13 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 960 of 2014 (O&M) -2- appeared and it was pleaded that a duly registered partnership firm was being run by Suresh Kumar Jain, Indra Devi, Atul Kumar Jain and Vijay Kumar Jain as its partners. Suresh Kumar Jain, Satish Kumar Jain and Ajay Kumar Jain had never been in exclusive possession of the premises in question. It was further pleaded that the premises in question was not required by the son of the landlord. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of ejectment against respondents against the property mentioned in para no. 1 of the petition and shown in red colour of the site plan on the grounds taken in the petition? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition ? OPR 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present petition ? OPR 5. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties ? OPR 6. Relief. Rent Controller vide order dated 1.10.2010, allowed the ejectment petition. The said order was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 19.9.2013. Hence, the present petition by the petitioners-tenant. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.13 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 960 of 2014 (O&M) -3- that the premises in question was not required by the landlord for his personal use. In fact, the landlord was not running any business with his father and brothers. Therefore, there was no occasion for expansion of the said business. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the property in question had never been sublet by the tenant. In the present case, the landlord had sought ejectment of the tenant on the ground of subletting, personal necessity and arrears of rent. The ejectment of the tenant has been ordered on the ground of subletting and personal necessity. Case of the landlord was that Babu Lal Jain had been inducted as a tenant. However, the premises in question had been sublet by him to Suresh Kumar Jain, Satish Kumar Jain and Ajay Kumar Jain. Case of the tenant was that M/s Satish Iron and Machinery store was a partnership firm. Babu Lal Jain was a partner in the said firm to the extent of 10% share and, therefore, there was no question of subletting the shop by Babu Lal to anyone. Learned Appellate Court while dealing with the aspect of subletting has held as under:- “There is no evidence that Babu Lal Jain ever issued any bill or cheque on behalf of M/s Satish Iron and Machinery Store. It has come in the evidence of RW10 and RW13 Suresh Kumar that no payment was made from the firm M/s Satish Iron and Machinery Store to Babu Lal and no amount was withdrawn by Babu Lal. No salary was paid to Babu Lal and as such Babu Lal was not a working partner. As Babu Lal was not working partner and therefore, he was not having any control over the Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.13 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 960 of 2014 (O&M) -4- tenanted premises. On the other hand, it has come in the evidence of RW12 who is son of Babu Lal that Babu Lal started his own business in the name of Jain Iron Store at Kanod Gate, Rewari in 1988. And he had taken a telephone connection in his own name at the address of Kanod Gate, Rewari. The sale tax returns and income tax returns of the firm M/s Satish Iron and Machinery Store were filed by Suresh Kumar Jain as per the evidence of RW2 and RW4. No amount was invested by Babu Lal in the partnership business of M/s Satish Iron and Machinery Store and neither any salary nor any other amount was withdrawn by Babu Lal from the firm M/s Satish Iron and Machinery Store. Therefore, it is clear that Babu Lal has parted with the possession of the shop in question in favour of his nephews and he was only shown as partner having only 10% share in the partnership deed just to avoid ejectment on the ground of subletting.” Thus, from the facts noticed by the Appellate Authority, it was evident that the premises in question had been sublet by Babu Lal Jain to Suresh Kumar Jain, Satish Kumar Jain and Ajay Kumar Jain. So far as the ground of personal necessity is concerned, the landlord had taken the plea that he required the shop in question for his son. The case of the landlord was that his son Shri Ram was carrying on business of coal with Tara Chand and Dinesh Kumar. However, now his son Shri Ram wanted to start the business of iron and machinery store in the premises in question as he was not having good relations with his other Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.13 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 960 of 2014 (O&M) -5- brothers. In this regard, the landlord as well as his son Sri Ram appeared in the witness box and deposed that the premises in question was required by Sri Ram to run his business. There is no occasion to doubt the need of the landlord to allow his son to run his business in the demised premises. It is the settled proposition of law that the landlord is the best judge qua his needs. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Courts below rightly ordered the ejectment of the petitioners from the premises in question on the ground that it had been sublet by the tenant and that the landlord required the same for his personal use. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 07, 2014 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.13 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh "