TARLOK CHAND Vs. GURAN DITTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition against the order learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dated February 3, 1979, confirming the order of the Rent Controller, whereby his ejectment was ordered on the ground that the landlords need the premises in dispute for their own occupation.

(2.) The facts found by the Appellate Authority are that out of the landlords, two brothers and their mother together with their families consisting of six children are residing in a rented house consisting of three rooms. Out of the house in dispute, three rooms are in possession the tenant and seven rooms are lying vacant which are in possession of the landlords. Out of these seven rooms, four are on the ground floor and three are on the first floor. The learned Appellate Authority without any plea or evidence on the record held that out of four rooms on the ground floor only one was habitable and the other three rooms had no ventilation. Even if this finding may he accepted, the landlords have four rooms in the house in dispute in their possession and three rooms in the house on rent with them. According to the Appellate Authority, the two brothers, their mother and the children would require six rooms 'for their living. Although seven rooms are in their possession still the Appellate Authority upheld the plea by taking into consideration individually the two accommodations and holding each one of them insufficient for the need of the landlords. This was obviously an approach unwarranted by law. It was not the plea of the two brothers that they Want to reside together and there was no reason that they must live together. If one of the brothers and his family shifts to the house owned by them, both the brothers would have a comfortable living and sufficient accommodation for their requirements. The authorities below were, therefore, not justified in holding that the landlords require the accommodation for their personal use on the facts proved. It may also be noticed that the landlords never pleaded that the accommodation in their possession already was insufficient for their needs. The finding of the Appellate Authority, therefore cannot be sustained and is hereby reversed.

(3.) Before closing the judgment, I may also notice that one of the reasons given by the Appellate Authority for upholding the need of the landlords was that they would also need some accommodation for their married sisters who occasionally visit them. No accommodation can, however, be got vacated on the ground that it would be needed for casual visitors because once such imaginary needs are taken into consideration, there would be no limit to the needs of a landlord. It is for this reason that it has been repeatedly held that the tenant can be got evicted only for the needs of the landlord and members of his family who are dependent upon him and are residing with him.