NARINDER MOHAN WADHERA Vs. ROMESH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is directed against the concurrent findings recorded against the petitioner who is the landlord seeking eviction of the respondent under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the 'Act') on the ground that the premises in dispute were required for his bonafide personal need.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as under :

(3.) MR . Ravinder Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the site plan Exhibit A3 which has been admitted to be correct by the respondent clearly shows that the petitioner was in occupation of only one room and in this admitted position the need of the petitioner was genuine as his family consisted of three grown up daughters and a doctor wife, who was employed in the Amritsar Medical College, who often visited him. He has also argued that from the site plan Exhibit A3 and the other evidence adduced it was clear that the demised premises did not have a proper bathroom or a kitchen which were necessary for comfortable living for a man of the standing of a doctor and as such the findings of the courts below that the need of the petitioner was not bonafide was not warranted. In conclusion he has urged that it was not for the court to substitute its opinion as to which of the properties was more suitable to his requirement as this was a matter for the landlord to decide as held by this Court in Krishan Lal Nanda v. Madan Lal, 1992(2) RCR 104. He has also relied on Neena Thappar v. Avtar Singh, 1989(1) RCR 653 that the anxiety of the landlord occupying inferior accommodation to shift to his own house was well founded and that fact by itself would be sufficient to prove his bonafide needs.