SARJIVAN KUMAR Vs. RAJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the landlady- respondent who has retired from the Education Department on 31.5.1999 requires two shops under the tenant-petitioner for her personal use and occupation. No evidence has been brought on record showing that the landlady-respondent is having any other building in her possession in the urban area concerned. It has also been concurrently found that there are two shops between the street in the site plan Ex. P.1 and on the remaining portion of the building the landlady-respondent is residing with her family. She has filed two ejectment applications inter alia on the ground of bona fide personal necessity asserting that she wanted to open a departmental store in both the shops by removing the intervening wall. It has been further found that husband of the landlady-respondent who is without any work would also support her in the business. She has been found to be healthy enough to run the departmental store and her necessity has been found to be bona-fide. The opening of a departmental store in the front portion of the house has also been found to be convenient for her. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Janak Dulari Khosla v. Jaswinder Singh and others, 2003(2) RCR 2.

(2.) THE argument of the tenant-petitioner that her son is already running a shop has been rejected on the ground that she cannot force her son to provide a shop to her to start the business as she is legally entitled to start her own business in her own right and in her own property. The other argument also failed which was to the effect that the intervening wall between the two shops could not be removed as it was a load bearing wall. It has been observed that in the modern time, support to batten can be given by constructing cemented beam by placing girder and such a course could be conveniently adopted by the landlady as there is no chaubara (room on the building in question) and the roof can be relaid as the roof is made of battens.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel at some length I regret my inability to accept his submissions because a glance on the provision dealing with the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal necessity would show that the landlord could apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant to put him/her in possession of the building (residential or commercial). The expression 'landlord' has got nothing to do with the expression 'family' which has been used in Section 13(3)(d)(i-a). The aforementioned provision deals with the necessity of the member of the armed forces of the Union of India who may require the rented premises for occupation of their family if a certificate to that effect is produced. In that regard, the expression 'family' has been defined to mean such relations of the landlord who are ordinarily living with him and are dependant on him. Section 13(3)(a) along with other relevant sections read as under :