P.S.PATWALIA,J - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the tenant against the order of the appellate authority evicting him from the demised premises on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the landlady. The petition filed by the landlady was dismissed by the Rent Controller. However, the appellate authority reversed the findings on bona fide personal necessity of the landlady in appeal.
(2.) THE landlady had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking the eviction of the tenant from the Ground Floor of property bearing No. 11, situated at Lawrence Road, Amritsar. The petition was filed on account of non-payment of rent, diminishing the value and utility of the demised premises as also on bona fide personal necessity. On the ground of bona fide personal necessity it was the case of the landlady that she required the premises for her own use and occupation. She is living in the upper portion of the building. She has to travel 15 steps to reach the First Floor. She was suffering from heart disease and high blood pressure. She was examined by a doctor in the year 1985 who did an E.C.G. of her heart and stated as AW-1 that as per the report of E.G.C. she had some heart problem. It is the landlady's case that she use to get breathless while climbing the stairs and had to take rest by sitting on the stairs for some time. The landlady is approximately 70 years old today when this revision petition has come up for hearing before me. It is therefore her case that at this stage of her life she requires the premises for her own use and occupation. The pleadings on the ground of personal necessity as set out in para 2(c) of the petition filed by the landlady read as under :- "2(c) The petitioner bona fide needs the premises for her own use and occupation. The petitioner is suffering from heart trouble recently and is advised by the medical experts not to climb any stair case. The petitioner along with her son is presently living at the upper portion of the building and finds great difficulty in climbing the stair case and on this account her health is falling day by day. The petitioner needs the premises on the ground floor for her own use and occupation."
(3.) DURING the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller the landlady appeared as her own witness and substantiated these averments. This stand was further supported by AW-4 Shri Surinder Kumar Berry, nephew of the landlady as also AW-1 Dr. Surinder Singh Madan, a private practitioner who had conducted the E.C.G. of the landlady in the year 1985. He stated that as per the report she had some heart problem. However, he could not tell the latest position as the E.C.G. was done in the year 1985. However he further stated that at that time she had a heart problem. The report of the E.C.G. was also placed on the record as Ex. A-2 and the receipt as Ex. A-3. On the basis of the aforementioned pleadings and evidence the appellate authority recorded the following findings on the ground of personal necessity :- "18. It was stated by the applicant, AW-3 that "she is living in the upper portion of the building and has to climb 15 stairs to reach the same. She is suffering from heart disease and high blood pressure for which she was already consulted the doctors and ECG of her heart was also done from time to time. While climbing the stairs, it is difficult for her to contain her breath and she has to put extra exertion on her heart. She climbs the stairs by taking some rest and by sitting on the same. She requires the demised premises bona fide for her own use and occupation. Her health is falling day by day." This evidence of the applicant that she is a heart patient and is suffering from high blood pressure and on that ground finds it difficult to climb the staircase did not find favour with the learned Rent Controller on the ground that she has not brought on record any corroborative evidence to prove that she is suffering from such kind of ailment and that she was required to lead cogent and convincing evidence that she was actually suffering from such a problem. The statement of the applicant could not have been brushed aside simply on that ground. In fact, there is corroborative evidence also on record, which the learned Rent Controller has totally ignored. The applicant examined Dr. Surinder Singh Madan, AW-1. He stated that "the applicant got her ECG examined from his clinic." He proved on record his own report as Ex. A-1, ECG Report Ex. A-2 and the receipt as Ex. A-3. His statement was not challenged during his cross-examination and he was only asked if the problem from which the applicant was suffering was temporary or not. He stated that she was suffering from temporary problem, which can decrease or increase. It is very much clear from his report Ex. A-1 that ECG of the applicant was normal. The applicant, AW-3 has also deposed to the effect that she has got herself examined from the respondent itself. The prescription slip was proved by her as AW-3/2. She was not cross-examined on that aspect of the case nor the respondent rebutted that portion of her statement. The prescription slip so proved by the applicant was objected to on the mode of proof but when the same was put to the respondent, RW-4, during his cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of the writing of that prescription slip on 14.2.1985, he had examined the applicant and had found her blood pressure to be 180/100. He stated that she was not having heart trouble but had got the problem of high blood pressure. That itself creates confidence in the statement, made by the applicant that she is suffering from heart trouble and from high blood pressure. It firmly stands proved from the evidence, produced by her that she is having heart problem and is suffering from high blood pressure." ;