RANBIR TALIB @ RANBIR SATWANT SINGH Vs M/S. BHATIA GAS
Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI,DIPAK MISRA
Case number: C.A. No.-000814-000814 / 2012
Diary number: 31115 / 2010
Advocates: ASHOK K. MAHAJAN Vs
JYOTI MENDIRATTA
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.28193/2010)
RANBIR TALIB @ RANBIR SATWANT SINGH Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
M/S. BHATIA GAS Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 8th July, 2010 passed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
Civil Revision No.5081 of 2003 whereby the revision
filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the
High Court.
3. The appellant-landlady filed a petition under
Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
Act, 1949 before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh,
2
seeking ejectment of the respondent-tenant from 229,
Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, (hereinafter
referred to as the demised premises). It was stated
in the eviction petition that the demised premises
was required by the appellant for herself as well as
her husband and son. The Rent Controller allowed the
petition for ejectment on the ground of bona fide
personal requirement and directed the respondent-
tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the
demised premises to the appellant-landlady within a
period of three months from the date of the order.
4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent
Controller, the respondent-tenant filed an appeal
before the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. By its
Judgment dated 3.6.2003, the Appellate Authority set
aside the order passed by the Rent Controller.
Reversing the finding of the Rent Controller, the
Appellate Authority held that the landlady was not
entitled for ejectment of the tenant from the
demised premises on the ground of personal
necessity.
5. The appellant-landlady filed a civil revision
3
before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh. The High Court upheld the judgment of
the Appellate Authority and dismissed the revision.
The appellant is, thus, before this Court
challenging the judgment and order passed by the
High Court.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the impugned judgment as
also the judgments of the Courts below.
7. In the facts and circumstances of this case,
we are of the considered view that the Appellate
Authority committed serious error in reversing the
finding of bona fide personal necessity arrived at
by the Rent Controller on the basis of cogent
evidence on record. Consequently, the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court affirming the
judgment of the Appellate Authority cannot be
sustained.
8. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the
High Court as also the judgment of the Appellate
Authority are set aside and order passed by the Rent
4
Controller is restored. The appeal is allowed. The
parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
9. However, as prayed for by the learned counsel
for the respondent, two years' time is granted to
the respondent to vacate the demised premises upon
filing usual undertaking in the Registry of this
Court within four weeks from today.
.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)
.....................J (DIPAK MISRA)
New Delhi; January 17, 2012.