MOHINI SURAJ Vs. SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed this petition for ejectment of the respondent on the ground that she needed the demised premises for her own occupation. The case set up in the petition as well as in her statement is that after the death of her husband which took place in August, 1980, she wants to move to her own house alongwith her children as she feels that she would be better placed at Chandigarh where she had been living for more than 15 years during the life time of her husband. It was further pleaded that Mrs. Punam Sarin, the daughter of the petitioner, whose marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce was at present pursuing her further studies in California and likely to return to India after completing her studies in the year 1983 and live with the petitioner at Chandigarh. Mr. V.K. Chaudhary, one of her sons, was stated to have suffered mental illness and was likely to come to India and live with her at Chandigarh. Similarly, it was stated that the second son of the petitioner who is employed as Financial Director in Ford Michigan and the third son who is carrying on business at New Delhi would be coming to Chandigarh and staying with her. So, it was contended that she needed the premises in dispute for her own occupation and the occupation of her children. The Rent Controller after appreciating the evidence led by the parties upheld her plea and ordered ejectment. On appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereby the owner has came in this revision.

(2.) A perusal of the judgment of the Appellate Authority would show that it has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances proved on the record and after detailed discussion recorded its finding. The finding recorded is essentially a finding of fact but was sought to be challenged on the ground that the Appellate Authority had relied on one sentence in the statement of the petitioner instead of considering her statement as a whole, The sentence referred to read as under :-

(3.) ALTHOUGH it is not open to this Court to reappraise the evidence unless the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority suffers from some legal infirmity or is highly improper, but on the insistence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I perused her statement and found that the conclusion drawn by the lower Appellate Court was quite reasonable and appropriate. The petitioner is more than 67 years old and residing with her son in New Delhi. Her story that her divorced daughter or her son V.K. Chaudhary was likely to shift to India and reside with her at Chandigarh is highly improbable. Her daughter, admittedly, was doing her PhD. in U.S. A. and maintaining herself on her own. The statement of the petitioner that she was sending Rs. 1,500 to her has not been supported by any documentary evidence. Moreover, this meagre amount would hardly be of any help to her. Although she was expected to complete her studies in the year 1983, she has not till, today returned of India. So far as V.K. Chaudhary is concerned, he is an immigrant to U.S.A. and residing there for the last 15 years. His wife to a Dentist and it is well known that it is a very lucrative profession there. He himself is still working as Engineer in U.S.A which shows that the story of his mental ailment is nothing but a vain excuse. The son with whom she is residing in Delhi is carrying on his business there. The statement of the petitioner that she wants to live at Chandigarh because of her long association is nothing but a mere desire and wish. Neither she is likely to shift to Chandigarh in her advanced age nor there is any need to do so. To overcome this situation, the petitioner moved an application for additional evidence to show that the landlord of the house in which she was residing in Delhi has moved an ejectment petition against her. The mere moving of the petition for ejectment is of no consequence and petitioner is residing as of right in the house at Delhi. Consequently till she is ordered to be ejected therefrom by a competent court she would not have any cause to claim ejectment of her own tenant from the house in dispute. The evidence sought to be adduced therefore has no relevancy at this stage and the prayer is accordingly declined.