MUNSHI RAM Vs. VED PARKASH JHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord, respondent No. 1, filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter called the Act), for the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that he needed the demised premises for his own occupation. The averment made in this respect was that he required the demised premises for use and occupation of his son's family, that he was not occupying any other suitable accommodation in the city of Ludhiana and that he has not vacated any such accommodation in the said Urban area without reasonable cause.

(2.) The tenant contested the petition, denied the material allegations and pleaded that the landlord had already in his possession enough accommodation for his needs. He further pleaded that the landlord, in fact does not want the premises for his own occupation but instead wants to sell the premises and in order to get the better price, wants the same got vacated from the tenant. The Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the parties, upheld the plea of the landlord and passed the order of ejectment in his favour vide judgment dated November 17, 1976. Having failed even in the appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated September 3, 1977, the tenant has approached this Court by way of this petition under section 15(5) of the Act.

(3.) Though the authorities below have recorded a concurrent finding on the personal requirement of the landlord but I had to reappraise the evidence because both the authorities had proceeded to appreciate evidence on wrong premises that the landlord is the sole judge of his requirements. No doubt, for sometime such was the view prevalent in this Court but after the decision of the Supreme Court in Phiroze Bamanji Desai v. Chandrakant M. Patel and others, 1974 AIR(SC) 1059 this concept was under gone a change and according to the latter view as expressed by me in Rattan Chand Jain v. Charan Singh, 1978 1 RCR(Rent) 265 and by M.M. Punchi, in Jain R. K. Jain v. Khazan Singh, 1980 82 PunLR 142 a simple desire on the part of the landlord is not enough to substantiate a plea of personal necessity and the words, 'requires' in section 13 implies that there must be an element of need before a landlord can be said to require the premises for his own use and occupation.