Smt. Amarjit Kaur vs Lt. General Amar Singh

D.V. Sehgal, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 9 3 1987 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, u/s 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to Chandigarh (for short the Act) whereby an appeal of the tenant Petitioner against the order of her eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller, has been dismissed.

The Petitioner is in occupation of first floor of House No. 133 Sector 8-A, Chandigarh. The Respondent who is a retired Lieutenant

General from the Army is the owner of the said house and is the landlord qua the Petitioner. He filed an application u/s 13 the Act for ejectment of the Petitioner inter alia on the ground that the first floor of the house in occupation of the Petitioner which consists of two bed rooms, one of which is attached with a toilet, kitchen, another toilet, porch and open terrace in front i.e. the tenanted premises are bona fide required by him for the residence of his married son Jagmohan Singh who is employed as Field Officer in M/s Golden Tobacco Company, with his Headquarters at Chandigarh. The family of the said married son consists of himself, his wife Smt. Jagjit Kaur and infant son Master Hartaj Singh. It was averred that the said married son is not occupying in the urban area of Chandigarh any other building for his residence nor has he vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act, with a view to reinforce his plea for need of the demised premises for his married son Jagmohan Singh, the Respondent further averred that Jagmohan Singh with his wife and son are putting up with the Respondent on the ground floor which comprises of two bed rooms with attached dressing room and toilet, Drawing-cum-Dining, Pentry, kitchen, gallery, toilet, verandah in front and a fly proofed verandah in the rear. The Respondent has his own wife living with him. He has two other married sons, one of them is Ranbir Singh posted as Sub Divisional Officer (Canals) at Sansiana, District Hisar, whose minor daughter is living with the Respondent on the ground floor of the house in dispute. She is studying in Nursery Class in Carmel Convent School Chandigarh. The other son is Captain Ravinder Singh who is in the Indian Army He, his wife and infant son Navdeep visit the Respondent whenever Ravinder Singh is on casual or annual leave. He further stated that his friends and guests also visit him. Therefore, it is difficult for him to accommodate his married son Jagmohan Singh with his wife and child on the ground floor of the house. This ground for eviction was contested by the Petitioner but it prevailed with the learned Rent Controller who ordered her eviction from the premises in dispute. As already mentioned above, her appeal before the learned Appellate Authority failed and that is how she has now filed the present revision petition in this Court.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the learned Rent Controller including the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced by them.

As regards the extent of the family of the Respondent that he has three married sons having their respective wives and one child each; that out of them one married son Jagmohan Singh with his wife and child are living with the Respondent on the ground floor of the house in dispute; that daughter of one of the sons is staying with the Respondent and is studying in the Nursery Class in Carmel Convent School, Chandigarh, have not been disputed before me. It has however been contended that Jagmohan Singh, his wife and child can be conveniently accommodated on the ground floor in occupation of the Respondent. My attention has been drawn to the site plan Exhibit R5/A prepared by Mr. Hardayal Singh, Advocate, who was appointed as Local Commissioner. The main building on the ground floor has two bed rooms which measure 14'' � 15''.6" each. Each of these two bed rooms has one dressing room and one toilet attached to them. There is third toilet also on the ground floor. Drawing-cum Dining rooms measuring 13''.6" x 12''.6" and 13''.6" x 18''.0", besides there is pantry, store and kitchen. The front verandah is open while in the rear verandah, there is fixed grill with wire gauze. Keeping in view the size of the family of the Respondent including his two married sons who are in service out of Chandigarh, one of them being a Captain in the Army his plea that he needs the entire ground floor to accommodate his other two sons, their wives and children whenever they visit him is unexceptionable In fact it is proved on the record that the daughter of one of these sons is living with the Respondent and is studying in a school. The Respondent, as already noticed above has retired from Indian Army from the post of Lieutenant General. He has every right to have accommodation consistent with his own status in his own house. I am, therefore, convinced that the finding of the authorities below that the Respondent needs the demised premises on the first floor for his married son Jagmohan Singh is flawless.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner then invited my attention to the fact that there is an annexe on the rear side of the ground floor consisting of a garage, three rooms, kitchen, water-closet and bath besides open space He pointed out that major portion of this annexe/out-house was earlier let out by the Respondent to Vilati Ram R.W. 4. When he vacated in May/June, 1983, the same was let out the same to Sukh Ram A. W. 5. He thus submits that had there been a genuine need for the Petitioner to accommodate his married son, he would not have let out the said portion of the annexe to Sukh Ram in June, 1983, that is a few months before filing of the instant ejectment application. I, however, find no force in this submission. Jagmohan Singh, the married son of the Petitioner, as is clear from the evidence, hold status of an officer in M/s Golden Tobacco Company. He manages the business of this company in the territories of Punjab, Chandigarh and part of Himachal Pradesh. The Respondent cannot be expected to force his son with his wife and child to stay in the outhouses which are in the form of annexe and generally meant for accommodating domestic servants and drivers etc. The annexe does not have the amenities like attached toilet with the bed rooms. Moreover, it is in evidence that the garage and the room in its rear are already in use with the Petitioner for parking his car and for allowing his domestic servants to sleep. In fact, this room in the rear of the garage has been carved out by creating a pardah wall in the garage. The accommodation in the annexe can in no circuses stances be considered be fit ting the status of the married son of the Respondent to live along with his wife and child.

I, therefore, find no merit in this revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The parties are however, left to bear their own costs. The Petitioner is, however, allowed three months time to vacate the premises in dispute on the condition that she deposits the entire amount of arrears of rent along with future rent for three months within one month from today in the Court of Rent Controller to be paid to the landlord, failing which the landlord shall be entitled to take out execution and recover possession of the premises in dispute forthwith.