MANJIT SINGH ARORA Vs. B.S. LOBANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is against the order of the appellate authority affirming in appeal the order of the Rent Controller evicting the petitioner from the premises in dispute on account of personal necessity of the landlord. The eviction of the petitioner was sought in terms of Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act as applicable to Chandigarh. On notice issued by the Court the petitioner-tenant put in appearance and contested the application. This application subsequently was considered under Section 13 of the Act and so after framing the issues and permitting the parties to lead evidence order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller against the tenant - the present petitioner - granting him one month's time to vacate the premises in dispute. Appellate authority once again examined this matter in all its details but found no ground to differ with the finding of the Rent Controller and so dismissed the appeal. Once again month's time was granted to the tenant to deliver back the possession to the landlord. Appellate authority while affirming the finding of the Rent Controller also made reference to a fact that the respondent has already constructed his own house. Otherwise too, the appellate authority while affirming the finding kept in view the members of the landlord's family i.e. landlord and his wife, one married son and two grown up children, in all about 6 members, and so construed the same to be a case of necessity for this accommodation.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner assailing these decisions of the Courts below has argued that there has been non-compliance of the statutory provisions contained under Section 13(3)(a)(i) sub-clauses (a) and (b) of the Act; that there is no clear averment to the effect in the petition that landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the urban area concerned and secondly he has not vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act. Reliance has also been placed upon the decisions of this Court reported as 1977(1) RCR 595 and 1994(1) RCR 623.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the present petition is devoid of any substance and deserves to be dismissed on the short ground that the respondent-landlord has been able to prove beyond any doubt that he does not own or possess any other building except the one in possession of the petitioner. Both the Courts rightly came to the conclusion that case for personal necessity of the landlord has been made out. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. Petitioner is, however, granted one month's time to deliver back the vacant possession of the premises in dispute subject to clearing all the arrears of rent including the rent for the next month.