Prithi Singh vs Shanti Sarup

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This is tenant''s revision directed against the orders of authorities below whereby, on an application filed by the landlord (respondent herein), petition has been ordered to be rejected on the ground of personal necessity.

Landlord sought ejectment of his tenant on three grounds, namely, non-payment of rent, sub-letting and personal necessity, with regard to personal necessity, he averred in the petition that after he retired from government service on 31.5.1990, he vacated the government house on 30.4.1991 and is now residing in the house of his son at Panchkula; he has a wife and one daughter who is unmarried and has also to accommodate his married son, Bhupinder Kumar, his wife and two children. He thus stated that he requires the house for his personal use and occupation.

In the written statement, the fact that the landlord had retired from government service or that he is living with his son was not denied. It was also not denied that he wants to accommodate his married son, Bhupinder Kumar, his wife and two children. The plea of the tenant is that the landlord being an old man cannot live all alone without his son and the petition has been filed only for the purpose of increasing the rent.

The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, have on the appreciation of evidence on record, returned a finding that the landlord requires the premises for his own use and occupation and for the occupation of his family. In this civil revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent-landlord is staying with his son and, therefore, his need is not bona fide. He also contended that on two counts, the landlord has been disbelieved i.e. rate of rent and ground of sub-letting and, therefore, he cannot be believed when he says that he requires the premises for his own use and occupation. I am not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Simply because the landlord-respondent was not believed on the ground of rate of rent or the ground of sub-letting, would not debar him from claiming the premises when he requires the same for his own use and occupation. Tenant, in his written statement, has not denied the material avernments of the landlord in regard to the requirement of the premises for his own use and occupation. Respondent-landlord, before his retirement, was staying in the accommodation provided by the Government and on his retirement, he had to vacate the premises. It is only after vacating the government house that he has sought ejectment of his tenant from the premises in dispute. The ground of personal necessity stands established on the record and, therefore, no interference is called for in this civil revision which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Petitioner-tenant is allowed two months'' time to vacate the premises provided he pays/deposits the entire arrears of rent with the Rent Controller within ten days from today and also files an undertaking with the Rent Controller within the said period that he shall vacate the premises on the expiry of two months.