ASHWANI CHATLAY Vs. BRIG. H.S. DHILLON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed by the tenant-petitioner under sub- section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension of Chandigarh) Act, 1974 as applicable to Chandigarh, is directed against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below that the landlord-respondent requires the demised premises for his bonafide need to occupy the same himself. It has been concurrently found that the ground floor of house No. 2565, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh is occupied by the landlord- respondent, his wife and three grand-daughters. The son of the landlord- respondent Brig. P.P.S. Dhillon also retied from the Army on 1.5.1997. Miss Lagan Dhillon, one of the grand-daughters got married in June, 1996 during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority but in the meanwhile Brig. P.P.S. Dhillon, the son, had joined the family and the total members of the family continued to be five. The first floor of the house held to be in the possession of the second son of the landlord, who has kept his luggage there. The second floor of the house is used as servant quarters by the landlord-respondent, which is allegedly comprised of two rooms. On the basis of the afore-mentioned evidence, it was held that the landlord alongwith his family members, is in possession of ground floor comprised of three bed rooms, drawing-dining, kitchen, lobby and study room only. It has further been held that keeping in view the status of the family of the landlord, it cannot be said that three bed rooms accommodation is sufficient for them to reside because landlord as well ass his son P.P.S. Dhillon have retired from the post of Brig. The status of the family of the landlord is proved from the evidence that it is having sufficient cause. The courts have held that the necessity of the landlord to occupy the demised premises, rented out to the tenant- petitioner is bonafide and the landlord-respondent cannot be directed to live in the manner desired by the tenant-petitioner. He is best judge of his needs.

(2.) MR . Amit Jain, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that during the pendency of the instant petition, the second grand-daughter of the landlord-respondent has also been married. Therefore, the personal necessity should be considered to have reduced drastically. The learned counsel has also pointed out that the first floor by his other son cannot be kept outside the consideration for assessing the need of the landlord-respondent because merely keeping the luggage on the first floor cannot constitute sufficient basis for the landlord-respondent the state that his son alone is entitled to use the first floor. The learned counsel has also pointed out that servant could use only one room and not both the rooms and the second floor. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal, 2002(1) RCR 150 to submit that subsequent events my be taken into consideration if the relief claimed originally is adversely affected. He has also placed reliance on a judgment of this court in the case of Salim Ahmed v. Surjit Kumar Sahai, 1998(3) PLR 182 and argued that it is not a fanciful desire or a mere wish of the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant and the landlord must establish his bonafide requirements.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority. I am of the considered view that this petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Both the courts have concurrently found that the accommodation at the first floor is in occupation of the another son of the landlord- respondent. It may be proved that the other son with his family was to live in the accommodation occasionally but that would not constitute a basis to record a finding that the landlord and his son P.P.S. Dhillon could occupy that accommodation and for that matter, the same could be taken into consideration for recording a finding of fact. Both the courts have found that the accommodation available to the landlord, his wife and grand daughters is on the ground floor which obviously is insufficient. It is true that during the pendency of the litigation two of the grand daughters have got married but it is equally true that during the pendency of the petition Sh. P.P.S. Dhillon the son of the landlord-respondent has retired from the Army as Brigadier and has started living with his father. His date of retirement is recorded as 14.6.1997. Instead of five members, the family is reduced to four on account of the marriage of two grand daughters of the landlord. It is for the landlord to consider his need and personal necessity as long as it is not wishful and fanciful which cannot be concluded that it lacks bonafide. The demised premises would still continue to be required by the landlord- respondent.