Prem Vs. Maninder Kaur Kwatra - (High Court of Punjab and Haryana) (26 Oct 2020)

Evidence of attorney is acceptable, where the affairs of a party are looked after by an attorney or a close family member

MANU/PH/1198/2020

Tenancy

Present civil revision petition has been preferred by the Petitioner-tenant against the orders passed by the Authorities below ordering his ejectment from a portion of Industrial Plot. The only point on which counsel have addressed present Court is regarding the legality of the ejectment application being allowed on the basis of the deposition of the General Attorney of the Respondent-landlady without the Respondent-landlady stepping into the witness box. The counsel for the Petitioner-tenant has not argued about the bona fide necessity pleaded by the Respondent-landlady but has rather argued about the mode of its proof.

It is by now well settled that, a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from the tenanted premises not only for his or her need but even for the need of a closely related person. In the present case, the eviction petition was filed by the Respondent-landlady pleading the bona fide need of the demised premises for her son to start his business. Such an eviction petition was clearly maintainable by the Respondent-landlady under the provisions of the Act. Further, as per law settled by the Apex Court in 'Man Kaur (Dead) through LRs vs. Hartar Singh Sangha', where a landlord seeks eviction of his tenant on the ground of his bona fide need, normally the landlord himself has to give evidence and not an attorney. However, there is an exception to the aforesaid requirement i.e. where the affairs of a party are managed, transacted and looked after by an attorney and such attorney happens to be a close family member, it would certainly be possible to accept the evidence of such attorney.

In the facts of the present case, the ejectment application had been filed seeking eviction of the tenant-petitioner specifically raising a plea that, the same is required by the Respondent-landlady for her son to start his business, after raising some construction. The son of the Respondent-landlady could definitely depose in support of the averments made in the ejectment application without the respondent-landlady stepping into the witness box. Thus, merely because the Respondent-landlady has not appeared as a witness in the case and her General Attorney appeared, which General Attorney was none other than her own son, is no ground to non-suit the respondent-landlady. There is, thus, no merit in the sole contention argued by the counsel for the petitioner-tenant.

It has been pleaded that, the ejectment application was not bona fide and filed only to put pressure on the Petitioner-tenant to increase the rent. However, there is no material available on the record to substantiate this objection by the Petitioner-tenant. It has further been pleaded that there was nothing on record to show that the industrial plot was under threat of resumption for any illegal construction. There is no merit in the present civil revision petition. The civil revision petition is hence dismissed.

Relevant : 'Man Kaur (Dead) through LRs vs. Hartar Singh Sangha', MANU/SC/0789/2010

Tags : EJECTMENT DEPOSITION LEGALITY