TARSEM SINGH Vs. VIVEK PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the order of the Rent Controller who ordered his eviction under Section 13(A) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act'). The respondent had filed a petition contending therein that he is specified landlord and that he is co-landlord of the premises in question along with his mother and brother and that he was in service of the Punjab Government and was posted as Head of Department at Medical College at Amritsar. He has further contended that he retired on 31.10.1997 after attaining the age of superannuation. He wants to shift at Sangrur to look after his aged mother and his mentally retarded brother.

(2.) THE premises in question consists of two floors; ground and first floor. The first floor is in the possession of the petitioner-tenant and the ground floor is in the possession of the respondent-landlord. According to the respondent his mother and brother are staying on the ground floor. The parties have produced the sketches of the ground floor portion. The one produced by the respondent is marked as Ex.P/4 at page 50 and the one produced by the petitioner is at Ex. R/1. The controversy between the parties regarding the map is not much regarding the dimensions of the rooms, but is regarding the user of the rooms as mentioned in the map.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has cited the case of Mrs. Rena Drego v. Dalchand Soni etc., 1998(1) Judicial Reports (C&R) 599. It has been observed therein that the word 'reasonable' cannot mean convenient or luxurious, though it may not necessarily exclude the idea of convenience and comfort. It has been further observed that it can be taken as providing an angle which is comfortable or agreeable to reasons, having regard to the facts of the particular controversy. That was the judgment under the law applicable to Bombay.