- (1.) THE petitioner impugns the orders of the learned Rent Controller dated 5.9.2012 and that of the Appellate Authority dated 3.12.2013.
(2.) THE respondent -landlady filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') pleading that the premises occupied by the petitioner as a tenant are required by her for personal use. She averred in her petition, which is also on record, that the premises are required as her son, who is presently in service at Delhi, intends to shift to Chandigarh to take care of his aged parents. She stated that she has been residing in the ground floor of the said house along with her husband, who is a retired chief Engineer, for the last about eight years. The landlady is stated to be 72 years of age while her husband is 79 years. The personal necessity as set up by the respondentlandlady has been specifically stated in para 6 and 7 of the petition, which are extracted herebelow : "6. That the petitioner was residing in ground floor of the house in question for the last about eight years alongwith her husband Sh.Charanjit Singh, Chief Engineer (Retd.) aged about 79 years and was looking after her old parents. The mother of the petitioner expired in the year 2004 and after the death of her father she and her family has been in use and occupation of the said floor of the house. 7. That the son of the petitioner Sh.Sandeep Singh is residing at Delhi with his family at Delhi and presently in service. However at this stage, taking in view the old age of his parents, who are not keeping good health, due to routine age related problems which require assistance and he having been uncomfortable to visit Chandigarh off and on from time to time, out of natural love and affection in order to serve them at this juncture during their life time, had ultimately decided to shift alongwith his family from Delhi to Chandigarh and adjust him in the business/service living with his parents and further managing the operation of business of his wife from the house itself as the parents were fully dependent on their only son so far their physical health and safety was concern and they cannot be left alone for all intents and purposes on the mercy of others in case of any immediate attention, which was the need of hour and the son was morally bound to take care of welfare of his parents in all respects its being a paramount consideration leaving aside all other assignments because at times there cannot be any other substitute. Moreover this would enable his family to live peacefully in pollution free "City Beautiful" and enjoy the benefits of rights of property owned by the petitioner."
(3.) THE petitioner, who is tenant on the first floor of the house, took up the plea that the petition is frivolous and is not based on the genuine need of the respondent -landlady, as she along with her husband as also her children are staying in Delhi for a number of years. The petition has also been opposed on the ground that the respondent -landlady has a house in Delhi where she is residing and therefore the need as set up in the petition is false. Besides, the petition was opposed on the ground that the necessary ingredients of Section 13(3) of the Act have not been set up in the petition. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, after asserting primarily on the basis of objections raised before the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, has also submitted that in the cross -examination the respondent -landlady has admitted the possession of a house in Delhi as also the factum of her residing there for a sufficiently long time. It is in the backdrop of this that learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the need of the respondent -landlady is not bona fide and the petition deserves to be accepted more particularly when the respondent -landlady has failed to even establish the essential ingredients as contained in Section 13(3) of the Act and then failed to demonstrate her need by adducing adequate evidence in this regard. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have perused the material on record.;