SUMESH GUPTA Vs. SHAMILA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by Sumesh Gupta (hereinafter described as 'the petitioner') directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh dated 31.3.1999 and of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dated 15.11.1999. The learned Rent Controller has passed an order of eviction against the petitioner which was upheld by the learned Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that respondent claimed eviction of the petitioner on the ground that her husband Dr. (Col.) Bhisham Parkash Gupta was the owner of the house in dispute. Petitioner is a tenant in three rooms, kitchen, bathroom-cum-latrine, a common terrace on the back side and a common verandah on the first floor of the premises. The husband of the respondent died on 13.8.1996. He had executed a will in favour of the respondent. The eviction of the petitioner is being claimed on the ground (which survives for consideration) that she requires the suit premises for herself and members of her family. Her son had shifted to Chandigarh with his family. The respondent keeps ill health. There is no body to look after her. The accommodation with her is totally insufficient for the respondent and the other members of the family of her son Major Arvind Gupta. The brothers and sisters of the respondent come to visit her to give her moral support. But they cannot be accommodated in the house for want of space. The other son of the respondent is in United States of America and he also comes to visit the respondent.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and concluded after recording of evidence that the respondent needed the suit premises for her use. Consequently, the eviction of the petitioner was ordered. Petitioner preferred an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority held that the respondent was suffering from certain diseases and was not hail and hearty. It was further held that son of the respondent had been given sanction by the Army authorities to live in his own arrangement with his family in the house in question and that he in fact had been living with the respondent. It was held further that the respondent requires the property for herself and member of her family because the accommodation with the respondent was not sufficient for herself, her son and the children of the son of the respondent. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been preferred.