SHANTI DEVI Vs. MADAN KHOSLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS shall dispose of Civil Revisions No. 1682 and 1683 of 1995. Both the revision petitions have been preferred by the tenants against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and in appeal, affirmed by the appellate Authority.

(2.) THE property in dispute originally belonged to one Kirpal Kaur from whom the respondent purchased it on 13. 2. 1980 vide a registered sale-deed. The building consisted of three rooms and two verandahs. The portion mark 'b' in the site plan annexed with the petition is in possession of the petitioners in Civil Revision No. 1682 of 1995 while the portion mark 'c is in possession of the petitioners in Civil Revision No. 1683 of 1995. Respondent sought eviction of the petitioners on the following grounds : (i) that the petitioners are in arrears of rent. (ii) that the respondent bona-fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for his family; (iii) that the petitioners have materially impaired the value and utility of the premises by making material alterations; (iv) that the premises are in a dilapidated condition and are unfit and unsafe for human habitation. On contest by the petitioners, Rent Controller passed an eviction order against the petitioners on the grounds of personal necessity of the landlord and also that the premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In appeal by the petitioners, order of the Rent Controller has been affirmed by the appellate Authority. Hence, the present revision petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there was sufficient material before the Authorities below to record a finding that the landlord not only has a desire to occupy the premises, but he actually needs the same and his need is genuine and reasonable. The Authorities under the Act have referred to each and every evidence, oral as well as documentary, to find that the landlord requires the premises for his own occupation and for occupation of his family. Nothing has been pointed out in the course of arguments as to how the appreciation of evidence by the Authorities below is improper. Landlord is a lecturer in the Punjabi University, Patiala, and is living in a rented room in Khalsa Mohalla, Patiala, which by any standard cannot be said to be sufficient and suitable for his requirement. The family of the landlord consists of his wife and two children. The wife of the landlord is employed on a transferable post in Haryana. The children of the landlord are putting up with their mother as the landlord is not in possession of sufficient and suitable accommodation. In my view, landlord is justified in saying that the studies of his children are suffering because of his wife's frequent transfers. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in his desiring that his children should stay with him for their proper growth and education. Moreover, the house of the landlord in village Rahon, District Jalandhar, where his parents used to reside, has fallen down and with the death of his father, his mother is residing with him. In this view of the matter, no different view can be taken than the one taken by the Authorities below.