SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J - (1.) THE tenant has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, against the orders of ejectment, passed against her by both the Courts below on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent-landlord.
(2.) IN this case, the respondent-landlord filed the ejectment application against the petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent as well as for personal necessity. The demised premises is a flat situated in Sector 40-D, Chandigarh, which was allotted to father of the respondent-landlord and which was let out at the monthly rent of Rs. 400/- per month to the husband of the petitioner, who has now expired. The demised premises is required by the respondent-landlord as he and his wife have decided to live in the said house. At present, the respondent is residing in Delhi and it has been alleged that he and his wife have decided to settle in Chandigarh, after the retirement, as his other brothers are also living in Chandigarh. But the Courts below, after considering the various evidence led by the parties, have come to the conclusion that ejectment of the respondent is bona fide and ejectment of the petitioner-tenant has been ordered. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding recorded by the Courts below on issue No. 2, is not sustainable. It has been argued that requirement of the respondent is a mere desire and the same cannot be said to be reasonable and bona fide. He further submits that on earlier occasion also, in the year 1988, an ejectment application was filed by the respondent-landlord, which was dismissed. This fact also establishes that requirement of the respondent-landlord for personal necessity is not bona fide and he only wants ejectment of the petitioner-tenant for renting it out to some other tenant.
(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by both the Courts below. It has been held that from the documents available on record, it has been proved that wife of the respondent had got education at Chandigarh. They do not own any other bundling in the urban area in Chandigarh and they did not vacate any such building, It is further found that requirement of the respondent is not fanciful, unreasonable or a mere desire. In this regard, the Appellate Authority has observed as under :- "11. There is no reason for the Court to return a finding that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. The tenant cannot dictate to the landlord as to how, he could adjust himself without getting the possession of the demised premises. The desire of the landlord who has got a house in Chandigarh cannot, in any manner be seen with suspicion especially when he has got a house in Chandigarh and wants to stay away from the polluted environment of Delhi. The Court has got no jurisdiction to doubt the intention of a landlord who after having retired wants to live peaceful life in Chandigarh. In view of the above and following the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghunath G. Panhale v. M/s. Chagan LaL Sudarji and Co., 1999(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 485 : 1999(2) (sic) page 485, I do not find any ground to interfere in the findings of the Rent Controller regarding the bona fide need of the landlord. It is further observed that enough safeguards have been provided by the Rent Act itself which enable a tenant to approach the Court for taking the possession back in case the landlord rents out again the demised premises or does not occupy the same after getting the same vacated as per provisions of Section 13(4) of the Rent Act." ;