SURJIT KAUR Vs. PUSHPINDER SINGH BEHL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, against the orders of ejectment, passed against her by both the Courts below on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent-landlord.

(2.) IN this case, the respondent-landlord filed the ejectment application against the petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent as well as for personal necessity. The demised premises is a flat situated in Sector 40-D, Chandigarh, which was allotted to father of the respondent-landlord and which was let out at the monthly rent of Rs. 400/- per month to the husband of the petitioner, who has now expired. The demised premises is required by the respondent-landlord as he and his wife have decided to live in the said house. At present, the respondent is residing in Delhi and it has been alleged that he and his wife have decided to settle in Chandigarh, after the retirement, as his other brothers are also living in Chandigarh. But the Courts below, after considering the various evidence led by the parties, have come to the conclusion that ejectment of the respondent is bona fide and ejectment of the petitioner-tenant has been ordered.

(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by both the Courts below. It has been held that from the documents available on record, it has been proved that wife of the respondent had got education at Chandigarh. They do not own any other bundling in the urban area in Chandigarh and they did not vacate any such building, It is further found that requirement of the respondent is not fanciful, unreasonable or a mere desire. In this regard, the Appellate Authority has observed as under :-