SHIV KUMAR JAIN Vs. DAYA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'Act') challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the demised premises are required for the landlord-respondent for his own occupation as the accommodation where he is presently housed, is too small for his family comprised of ten members. It has been concurrently found that the accommodation in which the landlord-respondent has been living comprises only for three rooms and he has to live with his two married sons, daughters-in-law and grand-children which is extremely insufficient. The insufficiency of the accommodation is evident from a perusal of paragraphs 24 and 25 and the same read as under :-

(2.) MR . Rajesh Garg, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has however raised a solitary argument that the landlord-respondent had earlier filed three applications for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner and the last application out of those three, was decided on 9.9.1993. According to the learned counsel, both the sons of the landlord-respondent were already married before 1993 and the ground of personal necessity was available to him in those proceedings. The learned counsel has maintained that having not chosen to plead the ground of personal necessity in the earlier proceedings such a ground could not be raised by the landlord-respondent by filing another petition on 10.2.1995. Learned counsel maintained that the principle in the nature of res judicata/constructive res judicata would be attracted and fully apply to the instant case.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this petition lacks of merit and is liable to be dismissed because it has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that the necessity of the landlord-respondent is genuine and is not a mere wish. In three rooms, the landlord-respondent could not accommodate 10 members of his family. It is an admitted case that two sons of the landlord-respondent are married and are living in a very congested accommodation of three rooms along with his daughters-in-law and the grand-children.