GOKAL CHAND MITAL, J. - (1.) ON 15.12.1976, Smt. Sohan Devi filed a petition for ejectment of Parkash Chander tenant from a residential house in Chandigarh on the ground of personal necessity amongst others. The only ground pressed during the trial was of personal necessity. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority did not find any merit in the petition and dismissed the same. This is landlady's revision in this Court.
(2.) HOUSE No. 522, Sector 18-B, Chandigarh was constructed on two Kanal plot measuring 1000 Sq. Yards by the landlady whereas she used to live in Jullundur City where her husband was practising as a Doctor. The house was let out to the tenant originally at the rate of Rs. 195/- per month. The rent was raised to Rs. 310/- per month with effect from 1.8.1968, then to Rs. 375/- with effect from 1.10.1970 and finally to Rs. 425/- with effect from 1.2.1971. Earlier to the present ejectment petition, the landlady had filed a petition for ejectment on the ground of personal necessity on 7.12.1973 which application was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 24.9.1974. The husband of the landlady died on 13.2.1975. In the present ejectment petition, the following facts were stated to seek eviction on the ground of personal necessity :- "2.(b). That the petitioner is in bonafide need of the Kothi in dispute for her own use and occupation and for her family members. (Thereafter, the facts regarding the filing of the first ejectment application were mentioned and the result of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and the Circumstances under which the same was dismissed, were stated). Then it was stated as follows :- The circumstances have since been changed as the husband of the petitioner has died on 13.2.1975 and it is not possible for the petitioner to continue living in the present state of affairs at Jullundur. That Sh. Kewal Krishan Ohri son of the petitioner who was away to West Germany for the last more than 15 years, is returning to India and he is to live with the petitioner in the house in dispute. The said son of the petitioner is returning to India due to the changed circumstances mentioned in the petition, i.e., due to the death of Sh. Shankar Dass Ohri, husband of the petitioner." The tenant contested the petition and pleaded about the enhancement of rent from time to time. It was pleaded that the landlady wanted to increase the rent and the previous application for ejectment was dismissed by the Rent Controller on that ground. As regards the changed circumstances, it was mentioned that the death of the husband was wholly immaterial as two sons of the petitioner were well settled at Jullundur where she was living, one son being Ved Parkash Ohri who was running a Chemist Shop and the other son being Dr. Sudarshan Kumar Ohri who was having a well established Maternity Hospital where his wife was also working. In the absence of the husband at the old age, it was proper for the old landlady to stay with her sons at Jullundur rather than to shift to Chandigarh and live alone in the house. On all these facts, it was stated that the application for ejectment was mala fide. In replication filed by the landlady she stated as follows :- "4(i) That the applicant requires the building for her own bonafide use and occupation as the applicant wants to settle at Chandigarh with her family. The husband and the son of the applicant are highly qualified and competent doctors and are doing their medical practice at Jullundur City. They have decided to start a clinic and a nursing home at Chandigarh as well."
(3.) WHEN evidence has led, the reason to shift to Chandigarh from Jullundur City was shifted from the pleas taken in the ejectment petition. Thus will be clear from the statement of the landlady who appeared as A.W. 1. The true translation of the relevant portion of the same is as follows :- "My son who worked in Germany had fallen ill. Now he has come to India. I want to keep him with me in the house in dispute--------My daughters-in-law do not behave well with me and, therefore, I do not want to say there (Jullundur). After the death of my husband, I do not want to stay there. Cross-examination : It is correct that during the lifetime of my husband, I used to live with him in our Jullundur house. My husband during his lifetime had given the Jullundur house to my son Ved Prakash. In Jullundur sometimes. I live with Ved Parkash and sometimes with Dr. Sudarshan. Dr. Sudarshan is separate for the last 12 years whereas Ved Parkash used to live in one portion of my husband's house. My son, who used to live in Germany, had been remaining very ill for the last one year. Before this, he was never ill. He has diabetes and cannot do any work. His wife and children have also now started living with me. I have decided to living in Chandigarh house a year ago because my younger ailing son is neither being kept by his brothers nor is being got treated and I will get him treated after living in the house in dispute.-------------During the last one year, I have not shown my ailing son to any Doctor.-----------" ;