- (1.) THE respondent landlady on her retirement sought the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that she is not in possession of any suitable accommodation within the local limits of Chandigarh. She is in possestion of only a small portion on the ground floor. The petitioner-tenant sought leave to defend the petition inter alia contending that she is not in bona fide need of the demised premises and she is already in possession of sufficient accommodation for her need.
(2.) AS observed by this Court in Civil Revision No 829 of 1987 (Mahajan Cloth House and Anr. v. Tara Singh ,c. R. No. 829 of 1989, decided on May 11, 1990) and Civil Revision No. 1839 of 1989 (M/s. Delhi Cloth Mills etc. v. Lachhman Dass, C. R. No. 1839 of 1989, decided on May 17, 1990), bona fide need and sufficiciency of accommodation are no grounds to decline the relief under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amended. As envisaged by Section 18-A of the Amended Act, leave could have been granted only if by reading the affidavit itself, the ejectment application would have been liable to be dismissed on the ground disclosed in the application for leave to defend. In view of the observations in Precision Steel and Engineering Works and Anr. v. Prem Dava Niranjan Deva Tayal, 1989 (2) rant C. J. 643, Dharam Pal v. Malkiat Singh Gill (1987-2) 92 P. L. R. 383, and Joginder Paul v. Gurdial Singh, (1989-1) 95 P. L. R. 441, and the judgments cited above, sufficiency of accommodation already in possession of the landlord and lack of bona fide need are not sufficient grounds to decline the relief under Section 13- A of the Act. In view of this, leave to contest the application has been rightly declined.
(3.) IN view of the above, I find no ground to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. The Revision petition is dismissed.;