KIRAN BALA Vs. AMARJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KIRAN Bala let out the premises to one Avtar Singh on a monthly rent of Rs. 65/-. After the death of Avtar Singh, his heirs are continuing in possession as tenants. She filed an ejectment application for eviction of the tenants on certain grounds and the only ground on the basis of which the order of ejectment was passed by the learned Rent Controller was the ground of personal necessity. In the ejectment application, she had stated that she requires the premises for her own and occupation after the transfer and posting of her husband who is in the Army, in the operational area. Being aggrieved of the order of the learned Rent Controller, the tenants filed appeal before the appellate authority. Before the learned appellate authority, an application was filed on behalf of the tenants supported by an affidavit of Jasbir Singh husband of Narinder Kaur. In the said application it was stated that the landlady sought ejectment on the ground that her husband Major Chiber Singh is posted in operational area but now he has been transferred and posted at Goa which is a peace station. On the basis of application and affidavit, the learned appellate Authority upset the finding of the learned Rent Controller holding that bonafide requirement of landlady was that her husband was posted in operational area having ceased to exist, findings in her favour cannot be recorded. The landlady has come to this Court challenging the order of the appellate authority. Shri H.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the landlady does not own any house anywhere in India and her husband was earlier posted at Gauhati when the ejectment application was filed but when the tenants' appeal was pending before the learned appellate authority, her husband was posted at Goa. Thereafter, he was posted at Naushera, Ferozepur, and now is posted as Gauhati border in Assam. He has further submitted that the landlady has two sons and a daughter who are all college/school going. In reply the learned counsel for the Respondent has referred to the cross-examination of the attorney of the landlady to the effect that at the time when the husband of the landlady was posted at Naushera (J&K), the landlady with her children was residing in a government accommodation at Kota. The said government accommodation was provided to her because her husband was posted at Naushera.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that this petition must succeed, as admittedly, the landlady does not own any house anywhere in India. Her husband being in the Army is likely to be posted from one place to another and a permanent accommodation is definitely required for the family. As a matter of fact when a landlady or a landlord requires his or her only premises for his or her own occupation, then the question of bonafide is alien for consideration and need not at all be gone into until there are compelling circumstances to disbelieve the version of the landlord or the landlady, totally. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the need of the landlady is not genuine. She cannot be denied the relief merely because her husband was of one stage, posted in a peace station. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the view taken by the learned appellate authority is not justified and clearly calls for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.