2014 (12) TMI 1400 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - Arrears of rent and personal bona fide necessity for the settlement - entitlement of applicant to evict respondent from the demised premises - no cause of action to file the present petition - HELD THAT - It is no more res-integra that the suitability of any premises for the need of the landlord is to be considered as per the convenience and choice of the landlord who is at liberty to decide how he has to utilize his property and which property is best suited for his needs. The tenant has no role to dictate his terms in the matter. Admittedly the demised premises with the revision petitioner was required by the respondent to settle her daughter who lost her husband an armymen who died in insurgency. The premises is admittedly shop-cum-flat. The first and second floors of the premises are residential. Even if PUDA/GMADA had under some scheme allowed the conversion of shop-cum-flat(SCF) to shop-cum-office(SCO) the option lies with the owner to avail the concession given by PUDA/GMADA and certainly for the conversion of residential portion of a building into commercial one has to pay conversion charges. The violation of the rules and regulations of PUDA/GMADA may invite resumption of building for its unauthorized use. Even if this plea of petitioner be accepted that Coaching Centre can be started on the first and second floors of the premises in question still the option lies with the landlord to select as to where the same is intended. It is the case of the landlord that the demised premises being ground floor and basement are more suitable to start a Coaching Centre as compare to the remaining portion of SCF. In view of the need and choice of the landlord the wish/dictate of the revision petitioner that the landlord should start the Coaching Centre on the first and second floors of the building is no ground to doubt the bona fide need of the respondent-landlady. In the present case the revision petitioner in his written statement has categorically denied the existence of rent agreement dated 16.10.2008 as such he stood debarred from taking the plea that vide that agreement he had taken the premises for a term of five years. There are no legal or factual infirmity in the judgment under revision calling for any interference - revision petition has no merits - revision petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eviction of tenant under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
2. Maintainability of the present petition.
3. Cause of action for filing the present petition.
4. Relief sought.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eviction of tenant under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949:
- Respondent filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner based on arrears of rent and personal bona fide necessity for her daughter's coaching center.
- Tenant denied the rate of rent as per the alleged agreement and claimed a lower rate.
- Rent Controller accepted the landlord's plea for eviction due to genuine necessity and ordered the tenant to vacate.
- Appellate Authority upheld the decision, emphasizing the landlord's right to decide the property's use for personal needs.
- Court rejected tenant's argument on the alleged agreement's terms, stating it was not binding as the tenant disputed its existence.
- Citing legal precedent, the Court affirmed the landlord's right to seek eviction under the Rent Act despite any prior agreements.

Issue 2: Maintainability of the present petition:
- Tenant argued that the petition was not maintainable as the alleged agreement stated a five-year term, but the petition was filed six months after tenancy initiation.
- Court dismissed this argument, noting the disputed agreement and the statutory tenancy under the Rent Act, allowing the landlord to seek eviction as per the Act's provisions.
- Legal precedent highlighted the applicability of Rent Act provisions during contractual tenancy, supporting the landlord's right to eviction.

Issue 3: Cause of action for filing the present petition:
- Landlord's genuine necessity for settling her daughter in the premises was upheld by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority.
- Tenant's argument regarding the landlord's husband seeking eviction elsewhere was deemed irrelevant to the present case.
- Court emphasized the landlord's choice in utilizing the property for personal needs and rejected tenant's attempt to dictate the property's use.

Issue 4: Relief sought:
- After thorough review of evidence and legal arguments, the Court found no legal or factual basis to interfere with the lower court's judgment.
- The revision petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the eviction order based on the landlord's genuine necessity and statutory rights under the Rent Act, dismissing the revision petition for lack of merit.