SOHAN LAL KATARIA Vs. RAM LAL DUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which requires consideration in this revision petition is whether the landlord needed the demised premises for his own occupation.

(2.) THE landlord sought ejectment of the petitioner-tenant claiming the demised premises consisting of two bed rooms and drawing cum dining room on the ground floor and one room on the first floor was bona fide needed for his own occupation, as he was occupying only one bed room on the first floor of a two room house in Ambala Cantt with his son and his family and he was 74 years old while his wife was of 72 years of age suffering from gout, obesity, backache, gastric trouble and sciatica pain etc. It was difficult for her to climb up stairs. The wife of the landlord needed help to go to the second floor for her daily needs like going to bathroom and latrine etc. Under the doctor's advice she had been advised not to climb the stairs. They were getting themselves treated at Chandigarh for their ailments and were likely to get better treatment at Chandigarh. The accommodation with him in the house at Ambala Cantt was claimed to be inadequate and insufficient as the same consisted of two rooms only and it occupants were the landlord, his wife, his married son, daughter-in-law, two grand sons and one grand daughter residing together. The landlord had three married daughters and three other married sons who were living at different stations but on their frequent visit to him had to stay with him at Ambala. In view of this shortage of accommodation, the premises in dispute was needed for his own occupation.

(3.) THE Rent Controller as well as the lower appellate authority after appraising the evidence came to the conclusion that the premises in dispute are required by the respondent-landlord bonafidely for his own occupation. It was found that the version set up with respect to the demand for increase of rent as well as the sale was a made up story in defence. The Courts below referred to each and every evidence oral as well as documentary on record. Nothing has been pointed out in the course of arguments how the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below is improper. Not even a single reason has been given on the basis of which different view can be taken than the one taken by the authorities below. The authorities below have rightly and for cogent reasons believed the statements of PW1 to PW7. It has not been shown why Dr. Ajit Singh who has corroborated the statement of landlord with respect to his health would support the landlord's version. Even otherwise also, it is common experience that at the advanced age of the petitioner who was of 74 years in 1983 when the petition was filed, it become difficult for one to climb the stairs exceptions apart.