RAKESH BHARGAVA Vs. GURDEV SINGH SYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The residual point for consideration as a ground of eviction is the proof of the requirement for own occupation of the landlord, after the Rent Controller rejected the landlord's contention as regards the change of user and the non-payment of rent. Landlord's contention was that she had five daughters out of whom four daughters were living away at Canada and one daughter was living in a nearby village. Whenever the daughters visit India they have no adequate accommodation in the house and therefore, the property was necessary for her own convenient living and for the accommodation of her daughters. The Rent Controller relied upon the decision of this Court in Mohan Lal Aggarwal Vs. Atinder Mohan Khosla, 2006 (1) RCR 220. that in a similar case where some of the children of the landlord had been living in foreign country and some of them had gotten married and gone away from the house, it would not reduce the requirement of the landlord, if he had clearly expressed that property was necessary for convenient living whenever his children returned to India. Rent Controller allowed the petition on that ground and the Appellate Authority has again considered the same issue with reference to the decision cited by the counsel for the tenant in Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, 1998 (2) RCR 533. by distinguishing the same and pointing out from the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court itself in the said judgment that it was not for the tenant to dictate to a landlord as to how he could adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises.

(2.) The learned counsel for revision petitioner refers to a decision of this Court in Swaraj Kumar Manroy Vs. Baldev Raj Sharma and another, 2007 (1) RCR 583. that an action for eviction under Sec. 13-B of an NRI landlord, who sought for eviction from two rooms of his house when the landlord himself had held four rooms in the house by holding that the landlord had not established as to how the accommodation already available to him was not sufficient. This decision must be seen in its particular factual context and there is no need to apply the same to this of the landlord, especially when there is clear evidence that the landlord has difficulties in accommodating his daughters whenever they came to India and the two Courts below have also considered the requirement of the landlord and upheld his need as bona fide.

(3.) There are no circumstances that justify interfering with the well considered decision of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.