HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. - (1.) THE present petition is directed against the concurrent findings recorded against the petitioner who is the landlord seeking eviction of the respondent under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the 'Act') on the ground that the premises in dispute were required for his bonafide personal need.
(2.) THE facts of the case are as under : Vide registered sale deed dated 24th January, 1989 (Exhibit A-2) the premises in dispute were purchased by the petitioner from the earlier owners Smt. Kalasho alias Kailash Rani and Smt. Pushpa alias Pushpa Wati. On 15th June, 1989, an ejectment application on was filed by the petitioner seeking to evict the respondent on two grounds; firstly the non-payment of rent and secondly on the ground of personal necessity. As the first ground no longer survives no details need be given with respect to the matter but on the question of the personal need of the landlord it had been stated in the ejectment application that though he was already living in Zira in a rented premises, the accommodation in his possession was insufficient having one room whereas the property from which eviction was being sought consisted of two rooms, a courtyard, a verandah, a kitchen and a deori. It was also stated as a ground for ejectment that the premises being occupied as a tenant by the petitioner at Zira had been rented out at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- whereas the rent that he was receiving from the demised premises was at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. The averments of the petitioner in the ejectment application were substantially denied by the respondent and it was stated that the house which the petitioner was occupying as a tenant was bigger in size and that the petitioner was in fact in the business of sale and purchase of property and had purchased the same solely with the object of evicting the respondent on account of the strained relations arising out of an earlier commercial transaction between them. The petitioner filed a replication to the reply in which it was clarified that the house in which the respondent was residing consisted of two rooms, a verandah and deori but one room was in possession of the landlord. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues : "(1) Whether the tender made on the first date of hearing is valid ? OPR (2) Whether the applicant requires the demised premises bonafide for his own use and occupation ? OPA (3) Relief." As already stated, issue No. 1 was not pressed but on issue No. 2 the Rent Controller found that the need of the petitioner was not bonafide and that the demised property had been purchased by the petitioner solely with the object of objecting the respondent on account of their strained relations; that the location and the nature of the property being occupied by the petitioner as a tenant was more suitable to his needs and finally that the evidence on the record showed that the entire property being occupied by him was in his possession. The Rent Controller accordingly dismissed the ejectment application and the appeal taken by the petitioner was also dismissed. Hence this petition.
(3.) MR . Ravinder Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the site plan Exhibit A3 which has been admitted to be correct by the respondent clearly shows that the petitioner was in occupation of only one room and in this admitted position the need of the petitioner was genuine as his family consisted of three grown up daughters and a doctor wife, who was employed in the Amritsar Medical College, who often visited him. He has also argued that from the site plan Exhibit A3 and the other evidence adduced it was clear that the demised premises did not have a proper bathroom or a kitchen which were necessary for comfortable living for a man of the standing of a doctor and as such the findings of the courts below that the need of the petitioner was not bonafide was not warranted. In conclusion he has urged that it was not for the court to substitute its opinion as to which of the properties was more suitable to his requirement as this was a matter for the landlord to decide as held by this Court in Krishan Lal Nanda v. Madan Lal, 1992(2) RCR 104. He has also relied on Neena Thappar v. Avtar Singh, 1989(1) RCR 653 that the anxiety of the landlord occupying inferior accommodation to shift to his own house was well founded and that fact by itself would be sufficient to prove his bonafide needs.;