GURBAX RAI Vs. KANTA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord (Smt. Kanta Rani) filed an application for the ejectment of her tenant (Shri Gurbax Rai) from her house under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The only ground which was pressed was that she needed the house for her own occupation. The learned Rent Controller accepted her application on the ground of personal necessity and granted the ejectment petition on December 23, 1970. The tenant was allowed 3 months' time to hand over the vacant possession to the landlord. The tenant went up in appeal which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority on May 15, 1973. The tenant was, however, allowed one month's time to vacate the demised house and put the landlord in possession thereof. Against that order the present petition under section 15 of the said Act has been filed and the only point that has been argued before me is that the landlord has not been able to prove that she needs the house for her personal occupation. It was stated by the landlord and her husband that they wanted to shift to Jullundur from Delhi where the husband was working as an Accountant with 2 or 3 firms and his total income was about Rs. 400/- which was too insufficient for him to maintain his family, apart from paying high rent for the premises. He wanted to shift to Jullundur were he intended to start some business in order to make a living. Both the Courts below have accepted the version of the landlord and her husband as true and I have no reason to differ from that conclusion. The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised that no shop or premises for carrying any business his so far been taken by the husband of the landlord at Jullundur. Evidently, he could not do so in view of the uncertainty of litigation. This litigation has been about 4 years as the ejectment application was made in November, 1969. Unless they have a place for residence, it is not possible for the family to shift to a new place on the off-chance of getting the house vacated. I do not think that merely because the husband of the landlord has not so far taken any shop on rent for running his business, it detracts in any way from her personal necessity of occupying the house for residence along with the members of her family.

(2.) I accordingly find no merit in revision petition which is dismissed with costs. The tenant-petitioner is allowed time till 31st of December, 1973, to vacate the house and deliver its vacant possession to the landlord.