MOHINI SURAJ BHAN Vs. VINOD KUMAR MTTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-landlady filed a petition against the respondent-tenant under S. 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Act No. III of 1949 (for short the Act) as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh seeking his eviction on the ground that she required for her own occupation the first floor. of House No. 112, Sector 16A, Chandigarh which had been let out by her deceased husband to the respondent for residential purposes at a monthly rent of Rs. 550/- under a rent note dated 14-8-1975. The accommodation consists of two bed rooms, one living room dining room and a kitchen in addition to dressing, bath and lounge.

(2.) It appears that the said premises were let out by the appellant's husband to the respondent as he, after retiring as a ViceChancellor of the Punjab University in 1974, had shifted to and taken up rented premises in Defence Colony at Delhi when he was appointed the Chairman of the DAV Managing Committee at Delhi. It further appears that the appellant's husband late Shri Suraj Bhan Choudhary suffered in later years from cancer and after protracted illness and treatment at various hospitals in New Delhi and USA ultimately died in Delhi on 28th August 1980. After her husband's death the appellant had no reason to continue her stay at Delhi and she decided to live and spend the evening of her fife in her own house, namely, the suit house at Chandigarh where she had spent 15 years of married life prior to their shifting to Delhi. With that object she approached the respondent requesting him to vacate the suit premises and also used good offices of common friends like principal K. S. Arya of DAV College, Chandigarh in that behalf as also wrote two or three letters but when beyond making promises respondent did not vacate she filed the eviction petition on 24th of May 1982 making out a case of bona fide requirement of personal use and occupation. The petition was resisted by the respondent on the ground that it was merely a device to earn enhanced rent after securing vacant possession and there was really no need or bona fide requirement on the part of the appellant as alleged. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence. Oral evidence on the side of the appellant consisted of three witnesses, namely, the appellant herself, her son Vinod Kumar and K. S. Arya, Principal, DAV College, Chandigarh and documentary evidence mainly consisted of three letters (Exts. P2, P3 and P4) written to the respondent. Respondent examined himself and, relied upon one letter (Ex. R1) that had been addressed to him by the appellant's deceased husband from USA in 1979 when he was suffering from the terminal disease suggesting payment of enhanced rent.

(3.) On appreciation of the oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence on record the Rent Controller recorded a finding that the first floor premises in question were needed by the appellant-landlady for her own use and occupation, that her need was genuine and that there was no substance in the respondent's case that the appellant merely wanted to secure enhanced rent after obtaining vacant possession. He, therefore, allowed the petition directing eviction of the respondent from the suit premises. In appeal preferred by the respondent the Appellate Authority took a contrary view on the question of bona fide requirement of the appellant and allowed the appeal. The High Court in revision preferred by the appellant under S. 15(5) of the Act confirmed the view of the Appellate Authority and dismissed the revision. The landlady has come up in appeal by special leave.