SABINA,J. - (1.) Narrottame Walia and respondent No. 2 had filed the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('Act' for short) as applicable to U.T., Chandigarh seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question. The Rent Controller vide order dated 24.12.2010 conditionally allowed the ejectment petition on the ground of nonpayment of rent. So far as the ground of personal necessity is concerned, the same was rejected by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the said order, petitioner as well as respondents filed the appeals. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.2.2014 allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-tenant.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Authority had erred in upsetting the judgment passed by the Rent Controller without considering the reasons given by the Rent Controller. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Nicholas V. Menezes v. Joseph M. Menezes and others, 2009(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 682.
(3.) In the present case, respondents had sought ejectment of the petitioner on the grounds of personal necessity and nonpayment of rent. The Rent Controller had held that petitioner was in arrears of rent and granted two months time to the petitioner to make the payment of arrears of rent. However, so far as the ejectment petition on the ground of personal necessity is concerned, the same was dismissed. The Rent Controller while dismissing the ejectment petition on the ground of personal necessity held that, although, respondent No. 1 had become owner of the premises in question but she had failed to establish any necessity to shift from Delhi to Chandigarh. The learned Appellate Authority while allowing the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity has observed as under:- "After the death of Mrs. Narrottame Walia, by virtue of Will dated 17.2.1989 of Lt. Col. H.R.Walia, Mrs. Chandrika Sondhi has become absolute owner of the out house i.e. demised premises and being owner of the demised premises she has become the landlady qua the respondent in respect of those premises and entitled to seek eviction of the respondent on the ground of her bonafide personal necessity. It is well settled that tenant has no right to dictate terms to the landlord. It is also well settled that a landlord has a right to live comfortably in the house owned by him or her. The respondent has no right to say that petitioner Mrs. Chandrika Sondhi should not shift from Delhi to Chandigarh as she is residing in Delhi for the last many years. It may be so, if the petitioner claims that she wants to shift to Chandigarh, there is no ground to doubt her intentions. Accordingly, it is held that Mrs. Chandrika Sondhi has a bonafide personal necessity to occupy the demised premises for her residence and to live there with her family members. The findings of learned Rent Controller on issue No. 2 are accordingly set aside and said issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents." ;