- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated April 6, 1974, delivered by the learned Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent filed an application in the court of the learned Rent Controller that the premises in dispute fell to his share under a family partition and that he needed the same for his personal use. The other co-sharers, namely, Devi Chand and Banarci Dass also joined him as applicants. The pleas raised in the application were controverted on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues : 1. Whether the tender is conditional. If so, its effect ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover house tax and property tax from the respondent. If so, to what extent ? 3. Whether petitioner Sat Pal or in the alternative all the petitioners require the property in dispute for personal occupation and residence of Sat Pal petitioner bona fide ? All the issues were decided in favour of the petitioner and the application filed by the respondents was dismissed. In appeal only issue No. 3 was pressed before the learned Appellate Authority who decided the same against the petitioner and ordered his ejectment.
(2.) Before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no issue on the point that Sat Pal respondent did not have sufficient accommodation in his possession and that the learned Appellate Court fell in error in ignoring the presumption made by the learned Rent Controller on account of the non-production of the rent notes regarding the other two chobaras which fell to the share of Sat Pal. I find no merit in either of these pleas.
(3.) Apparently issue No. 3 is widely worded and includes in its ambit the controversy whether the other chobara which Sat Pal respondent had taken on rent was sufficient for his personal occupation. In any event no such objection was raised before either of the two Courts below and at this late stage such an objection cannot be entertaind. The Appellate Authority has rightly observed that the other two chobaras which fell to the share of Sat Pal respondent had been let by him out on rent. When cross-examined on this point, Sat Pal stated that these two chobaras were not let out on rent during the pendency of the application. No effort was made on behalf of the petitioner to have the rent note produced in Court. It the statement of Sat Pal is to be admitted that he hired another chobara belonging to a Patwari it would be reasonable to infer from his statement that be had no vacant possession of the chobaras which fell to his share. He has also stated that the chobara-which he had taken on rent did not provide sufficient accommodation for his family. In Krishan Lal v. Ram Singh, 1966 CurLJ 132, it was observed by Dua, J. (As his Lordship then was) that it is the decision of the landlord himself which is the determining factor and that the Rent Controller cannot become the judge of the needs of the landlord. This implies that the statement made by the landlord has to be accepted in preference to the statement made by the tenant. There are good reasons for adopting this course because if the landlord does not occupy the premises from which the tenant had been ejected, the tenant has ampie remedies under the Act entitling him to claim the possession of the premises.;