JASWANT SINGH Vs. TARAN RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a tenant in the demised premises which is a portion of a residential house rented out to the petitioner for running a shop by the respondent-landlady. The tenancy commenced in the year 1977 and a petition for eviction under Section 13 of the Rent Act was filed by the respondent-landlady on the following grounds:

(2.) The learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition while the Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller ordering the eviction of the petitioner which is now the cause of grievance to him. The Appellate Authority while deciding the issue before it ordered the eviction only on the ground of personal necessity while negating the plea of the respondent-landlady on the issue of cessation of occupation. The rent having been paid had largely rendered this issue redundant. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the Appellate Authority is erroneous and liable to be set aside and there has been complete mis-appreciation of the issue of personal necessity. Hence this is the only issue which needs to be decided as the respondent-landlady has not filed any cross petition impugning the findings recorded on other issues by both the Courts against him.

(3.) The Court has examined the plea of necessity taken by the respondent-landlady. The respondent-landlady has pleaded that she is a widow aged more than 50 years at the time of filing of the petition and that she required the demised premises for her use and occupation as also for the family which consists of five members including herself, her son, daughterin- law and two grand-children. She stated that she is residing at the first floor which comprises of one store and two rooms which is not sufficient to accommodate all the family members and before renting out the premises to the petitioner, this portion was being used as a sitting room (Baithak). On appraisal of the material on record, I am of the view that no infirmity has been committed by the Appellate Authority in appreciating the evidence regarding the plea of bonafide necessity taken up by the respondent-landlady. The respondent has sufficiently proved that she being a lady of an advanced age is unable to climb the stairs to reach the first floor and during the pendency of the petition, she has also suffered a dislocation of hip and fracture of the leg which further compounded her problem. Apart from this, it is evident that the family of five members cannot stay in two rooms and a small store on the first floor and, therefore, if the old lady in the evening of her life had expressed a desire to be more suitably accommodated in her own premises, no fault can be found in such a desire as the same would evidently converge upon the need as well.