GOKAL CHAND MITAL, J. - (1.) MEHAR Singh landlord & owner of the house within the Municipal limits of Ropar town, which was in occupation of Shrimati Inder Kaur as tenant filed an application for ejectment inter alia on the ground of personal necessity, During the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the tenant died and her legal representatives were brought on the record. The petition was contested by the tenants. The matter was gone into by the Rent Controller, who found that the landlord was living Katli 1-1/2 Kilometers away form the town of Ropar, that it was proved on the record that he needed the house for his personal occupation for a family consisting of himself, his wife, four sons and a daughter and that he was not in occupation of any premises in the municipal area nor has vacated any such premises after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. It was also found that the house in dispute consisted of four rooms whereas the house in occupation of the landlord in the village consisted of merely two rooms. The aforesaid decision was maintained by the appellate authority. This is tenant's revision.
(2.) BEFORE me two points have been argued. One is that the landlord was found wrong with regard to the monthly rate of rent, and therefore, he should not be believed with regard to his personal necessity to occupy the house and that in the ejectment petition, the three-requisite ingredients were pleaded without giving details in regard to personal necessity and, therefore, the Courts below erred in law in looking into the evidence of the landlord and the petition should have been thrown out without reference to the evidence brought on record. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in either of the contentions. It is true that the landlord's case with regard to the monthly rate of rent was not accepted by the Rent Controller. Therefore, the evidence of the landlord deserves to b e scrutinized with caution. It will be wholly wrong to hold that even if the statement of landlord and his evidence on his other plea of personal necessity is reliable, still the same should not be relied upon.
(3.) ADVERTING to the second point, all the three ingredients which the landlord has to plead to seek ejectment on the ground of personal necessity were duly pleaded, and this matter was contested by the tenants on which the following issue was framed : "Whether the premises in dispute was bonafide required by the applicant for his personal use and occupation as alleged ? OPA Both the parties led evidence on this issue. Both the authorities below found that it was proved on the record that the landlord had four shops within the urban area on which there were chaubaras and that all the four shops alongwith two chaubaras were with tenants, whereas the chaubaras on the remaining two shops, which were in occupation of the landlord became vacant due to the death of the landlord's father but that were not sufficient for the occupation of family consisting of several members. It was further held that the house in dispute was purchased by the landlord, which consisted of four rooms, whereas the house occupied by him in the village consisted of merely two rooms. Most of these facts were elicited from the witnesses of the tenants and, therefore, are not in serious dispute. The only inference that can be drawn in this case is that the landlord genuinely needed the premises in dispute for his own occupation. On these facts, it cannot be said that the ejectment petition should be thrown out as in-competent and no reference should be made to the evidence because full details with regard to personal necessity were not mentioned in the petition for ejectment. The counsel for the tenant has placed reliance on Viliyil Moideemkunhni and others v. Edacherikkandi Govindan and others. 1983(1) R.C.R. 351, Abdul Samad Makhdum Baksh Shaikh v. Sudha Akant Parakhe, 1982 (2) RCJ 461 and Smt. Parkash Sood v. Surinder Singh Bawa, 1980(1) RCR 647 in support of the aforesaid contentions. I have gone through all these decisions. They are clearly distinguishable on facts. I am of the considered view that each case has to be decided on its peculiar facts. ;