RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order of eviction dated 9.11.2010 passed by the Rent Controller whereby his eviction has been ordered and further the judgment dated 21.4.2011 of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order of eviction.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that eviction of the petitioner has been ordered on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent-landlord. While upholding the findings of the Rent Controller on the ground of personal necessity, the Appellate Authority observed as under:- "Applying this legal yardstick to the facts in the case in hand, it is to be seen whether the petitioner has succeeded to prove this fact that she requires the premises in dispute for her personal use and occupation. The attorney of the petitioner while appearing in the witness box as AW1 reiterated on oath that accommodation available with them is not sufficient to adjust their entire family. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner is having thee sons, out of which one is married and two are of marriageable age. It is also admitted fact that one daughter of petitioner is widow having two sons and other daughter has expired leaving her daughter Amana. Meaning thereby, petitioner is having one son having two children, two sons, one daughter having two sons and one daughter of her predeceased daughter. It clearly shows that petitioner is having large family and now it is to be seen that whether they can adjust themselves in the property available with them. The answer is in negative. In view of the site plans proved on the file, it is clearly established on the file that accommodation available with the petitioner is insufficient to accommodate her entire family. Insufficiency of accommodation is also clear from the cross examination of the witnesses of the appellant. RW1 Jeeto has admitted in her cross examination that on the ground floor, petitioner is having only two sons and out of which one room, Jagdish Mitter husband of the petitioner is doing the business of sale of bread. Meaning thereby in the ground floor only one room is available with the petitioner to accommodate their family. It is admitted case of the parties that adjoining to the premises in dispute, there is ancestral house of the husband of the petitioner, which is consisting of one room on the ground floor, one room on the first floor. Meaning thereby in total, only four rooms are available i.e.two rooms in the premises in dispute and two rooms in the adjoining building. She further admitted that Balraj Kumar elder son of the petitioner is residing in one room in the ancestral house and even they are preparing their food i.e.running their kitchen in the said room itself. This admission clearly shows that the premises in occupation of the appellant are required by the petitioner for living a comfortable life. Tenant cannot dictate the terms to the landlord to live in one room and prepare the food itself in the said room. She further admitted that second married son of petitioner is residing in another room and he is also preparing the food in the said room. Admittedly, the petitioner and her husband are residing in one room out of the premises in dispute. These facts have also been admitted by RW2 Naresh Kumar in her cross examination. Despite having three sons alongwith their families, petitioner is also having one widow daughter alongwith her two children and her grand daughter. By any stretch of imagination, the accommodation available with the petitioner cannot be presumed to be sufficient for accommodating her entire family. The learned Rent Controller has rightly held that the sons of the petitioner cook their food and they sleep in the same rooms in which they are residing and even there is no bathroom or kitchen in the ancestral house. Even petitioner requires the sufficient accommodation to accommodate the guests and other family members like married daughter and she also requires accommodation for adjusting the family of her younger sons, who are yet to be married".
(3.) From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is clearly established that the accommodation available with the respondent landlord was not sufficient to adjust the entire family. It is admitted case of the parties that respondent landlord is having three sons, out of which one is married and two are of marriageable age. It is also an admitted fact that one daughter of the respondent landlord is widow having two sons and other daughter has expired leaving her daughter. It clearly shows that the respondent landlord has a large family. It is also established on record that respondent is having only two rooms on the ground floor out of which in one room husband of the respondent-landlord is doing the business of sale of bread. It is also not in dispute that the ancestral house of the respondent is consisting of only one room on the ground floor .Thus, the landlord is having total two rooms in the premises in dispute and two rooms in the adjoining building. This clearly shows that the premises in occupation of the petitioners are required by the respondents for their living. It is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and tenant cannot dictate his terms.;