TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s orally settled as Rs.40,000 per month + water and electricity charges. The rent upto April, 2009 had already been paid vide cheques and thereafter the respondent refused to accept the cheques. The requirement of the demised premises for the personal bona fide necessity of the respondent was denied with the plea that two floors of the premises are already lying vacant which the landlady-respondent can use for the purpose of starting Coaching Centre. The respondent reiterated her case in the re-joinder. Pleadings of the parties led to the framing of following issues:- (1) Whether the applicant is entitled to evict respondent from the demised premises ?OPP (2) Whether the present petition is not maintainable ?OPR (3) Whether the applicant has got no cause of action to file the present petition ?OPR (4) Relief. Rent Controller, SAS Nagar, Mohali disbelieved and discarded the rent note and accepted the plea of revision petitioner that the rate of rent was Rs.40,000 per month and not Rs.80,000 per month. The plea of respondent-landlady that she required the demised premises for her personal bona fide necessity to settle her widow daughter was held as bona fide and gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion of respondent that she wanted to settle her daughter, who has lost her husband, in the demised premises cannot be doubted. This argument that the Coaching Centre/Academy can be set up on the first and second floor of the premises which are lying vacant, cannot be accepted because the premises is shop-cum-flat and no commercial activities can be carried on the first and second floor without seeking permission to convert it as commercial building and paying the conversion charges. Moreover, the option lies with the landlord to assess the suitability of the premises for her business/vocation and the tenant has no right to guide the landlord or contest her choice of premises. Regarding the rent agreement dated 16.10.2008, learned counsel for the respondent argues that the appellant has not admitted the execution of this agreement and the Court below have also not relied upon the terms of this agreement. Once this agreement is ignored it goes with all its terms and conditions. Even otherwise, the tenancy created in favour of the appellant was statutory tenancy under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and the landlord can always seek the ejectment of the tenant on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was let out to the revision petitioner initially for a period of five years but the ejectment petition was filed six months after the start of tenancy, as such, the same is not maintainable. He has relied upon the observations in case Rajjo Vs. Jawahar Singh 2007(1) Rent Control Reporter 246 and Parveen Kumar Vs. Shiv Ram alias Sheo Ram 2000(1) RCR (Civil) The above arguments of learned counsel for the revision petitioner has been rightly declined by both the Courts below firstly on the ground that the rent agreement dated 16.10.2008 has been disputed by the revision petitioner. He has not relied upon any terms of the rent agreement including the rate of rent and the Court has also fixed the rate of rent as Rs.40,000/- per month instead of Rs.80,000 per month as mentioned in the rent agreement. As the revision petitioner has denied the execution of this rent agreement and the same has not been relied upon, the terms mentioned therein are not binding between the parties. The matter in the citation relied upon by learned counsel for the revision petitioner related to challenge of the consent decree. The question before the Court in that case was whether a party who suffered the decre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
