INDERJIT SINGH PANNU Vs. MANMOHAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner impugns the orders of the learned Rent Controller dated 5.9.2012 and that of the Appellate Authority dated 3.12.2013.

(2.) THE respondent -landlady filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') pleading that the premises occupied by the petitioner as a tenant are required by her for personal use. She averred in her petition, which is also on record, that the premises are required as her son, who is presently in service at Delhi, intends to shift to Chandigarh to take care of his aged parents. She stated that she has been residing in the ground floor of the said house along with her husband, who is a retired chief Engineer, for the last about eight years. The landlady is stated to be 72 years of age while her husband is 79 years. The personal necessity as set up by the respondentlandlady has been specifically stated in para 6 and 7 of the petition, which are extracted herebelow :

(3.) THE petitioner, who is tenant on the first floor of the house, took up the plea that the petition is frivolous and is not based on the genuine need of the respondent -landlady, as she along with her husband as also her children are staying in Delhi for a number of years. The petition has also been opposed on the ground that the respondent -landlady has a house in Delhi where she is residing and therefore the need as set up in the petition is false. Besides, the petition was opposed on the ground that the necessary ingredients of Section 13(3) of the Act have not been set up in the petition. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, after asserting primarily on the basis of objections raised before the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, has also submitted that in the cross -examination the respondent -landlady has admitted the possession of a house in Delhi as also the factum of her residing there for a sufficiently long time. It is in the backdrop of this that learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the need of the respondent -landlady is not bona fide and the petition deserves to be accepted more particularly when the respondent -landlady has failed to even establish the essential ingredients as contained in Section 13(3) of the Act and then failed to demonstrate her need by adducing adequate evidence in this regard.