JIT RAM Vs. MEHAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's petition against the judgment and order of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh who has ordered his eviction from the upper story of shop-cum-flat No. 54, Sector 23, Chandigarh. It has arisen out of an ejectment application filed by the Landlord respondent against the tenant petitioner before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh. The tenant has successful in defeating the claim of the landlord before the Rent Controller but stood defeated before the Appellate Authority.

(2.) The ejectment was sought on a number of grounds but the only contentions one which survives to be settled is whether the landlord bonafide requires the premises in dispute fo his own occupation. An incidental question also arises as to that is the extent and amplitude of his occupational needs. It has been found by the Appellate Authority that the commitment of the landlord travels in the area of need and is not based solely on a mere wish or germane for a mere excuse. It is to find fault with this approach of the learned Appellate Authority in coming to such finding that the learned counsel for the petitioner has been at pains.

(3.) On perusal of the statements of the landlord and tenant respectively, it becomes patently clear that the landlord for years has been a tailor master; he resided for a short while in the premises in dispute before renting it out to the tenant; sometimes later to the renting out, the sons of the landlord appears to have taken a job in Punjab University and has daily to come from his village Mullanpur to attend to that job. The landlord expressly declared that on account of weak eye-sight, he had stopped his tailoring business in village Mullanpur, though there is some evidence to suggest that the business is still going on in that village. Incidently it has come on record that Mullanpur is at a distance of four miles from Chandigarh. It is also the categoric stand of the landlord that on account of weakening of his eye-sight, he does no intend to start any business in Chandigarh and he only wants to live in the premises in dispute at Chandigarh. It has also been stated that he not only wants to live in Chandigarh but his desire is accentuated by his son working in the Punjab University at Chandigarh who alongwith him would be living in Chandigarh. On the averment of these facts, it is a matter of spelling whether they are reflective of a bonafide need or a mere excuse to further the cause of ejectment.