Vidya Sagar and Others vs Santosh Kumar Sharma

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This civil revision has been directed against the order of the authorities below ordering ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity of the landlady and her family.

Respondent-landlady filed an ejectment application against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. The learned Rent Controller passed the order of ejectment on the ground that the landlady bona fide requires the premises in dispute for her own use and occupation as well as her family, which consists of her husband who retired as Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank, two sons, one married daughter. Out of two sons, one was married at the time of filing of the suit and the other got married during the pendency of appeal before the appellate authority. On appeal, the learned appellate authority affirmed the finding of the learned Rent Controller. This order is being impugned by way of this Civil revision.

Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the landlady has got sufficient accommodation and two rooms in occupation of the petitioner are not required by her. He further contended that in the year 1982, petition was filed on the ground of personal necessity but the same was dismissed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in the civil revision. It is not disputed before me that the premises in dispute is a 10 Maria house The landlady is in occupation of two rooms on the ground floor, one room on the first floor and the Barsati portion. The ejectment is being sought against the tenant who is occupying two rooms and a kitchen on the ground floor. In view of the size of the family of landlady accommodation in her possession cannot be said to be sufficient by any stretch of imagination. The rooms on the ground floor are of no use to her without a kitchen which is in occupation of the tenant. Husband of the landlady retired as a Chief Manager and considering the status of the husband of the landlady two rooms in her occupation on the ground floor are not sufficient particularly when both the sons are married and the landlady has also a daughter who is yet to be married. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that one son is residing at Amirtsar is of no consequence because the landlady and her family owns only this house and they do not own any other house any where in India It has also come on the record that the son who resides at Amritsar often visits and stays with his parents.

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner of earlier petition filed on the ground of personal necessity having been dismissed has no force as the said petition was filed as for back as in the year 1982 on the ground that the premises in dispute are required for the necessity of her son who at that time was studying at Chandigarh. After the retirement of the husband of the landlady, the circumstances have changed and the family has got no other house other than the one where they have to reside. Therefore, the present application is not barred.

Consequently, the civil revision is dismissed. However, petitioner is allowed three month''s time to vacate the premises provided he pays the entire arrears of rent within one month from today and also files an undertaking to the effect that he will hand over the vacant possession on the expiry of the aforesaid period. The undertaking to be filed within one month from today. No costs.