RAJ KUMAR GAMBIR Vs. KANWAR SAIN JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition filed under sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, the Act) challenging the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the demised premises are bona fide required by the landlord-respondent for his personal use and occupation because of the old age and illness of the wife of the landlord-respondent. It has also been found that the landlord-respondent is about 70 years of age and on account of his fractured leg in an accident it is difficult for him to continue staying on the first floor. He has also proved the fact that his wife has developed heart problem and climbing stairs by her is not possible. The findings recorded by the Rent Controller on the question of personal necessity which are affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority read as under :-

(2.) THE findings of facts as to whether the demised premises are residential or non-residential, the learned Rent Controller has held that the demised premises is a part of the residential building and even if it was rented out by him for a non-residential purpose, the landlord-respondent is entitled to eject the tenant-petitioner for use of building as his residence.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel at considerable length and perusing the judgments of both the Courts below, I am of the considered opinion that the findings of facts on the question of personal necessity of the landlord- respondent cannot be interfered with. It has been categorically held by both the courts that the landlord-respondent had met with an accident and got his leg fractured which must be causing extreme inconvenience to him to climb staircase for going up and down on the first floor. It has also been concurrently found by both the Courts below that the wife of the landlord- respondent is suffering from heart problem and she is under the continuous treatment of a cardiologist namely Dr. A.K. Jain who had appeared as PW.1. Both landlord-respondent as well as his wife are about 70 years of age. In the evenings of their lives it will not be fair to deny them comfort of living in their own house in accordance with their desire and convenience. It is well-settled that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and interest. The tenant does not have much say in that decision of the landlord. In the present case, the circumstances showing illness of both of the landlord- respondent and his wife coupled with the fact that they are in the advance age, would further lead to the conclusion that the necessity of the landlord- respondent is genuine and cannot brook any further delay. In Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, 1999(2) RCR(Rent) 141 (SC), the Supreme Court analysed the concept of bona fide requirement. Laying down the test for objective determination of bonafide requirement of the landlord, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under :-