AJAY TEWARI, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed against the order of the Appellate Authority reversing that of the Rent Controller and thereby dismissing the Civil Revision No.3648 of 2006 (O&M) petition filed by the petitioners -landlord for the eviction of the respondents on the ground of non -payment of rent, subletting and personal necessity.
(2.) Learned Senior Counsel has argued that the petitioners had alleged that the shop in dispute was required by the petitioner No.2 who is sister in law (Bhabhi) of the petitioner No.1 being the wife of his deceased brother and once the petitioner No.1 had appeared and testified to the bona -fide needs of the petitioner No.2. the Appellate Authority wrongly discarded this evidence. In this connection he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Man Kaur (dead) by LRs Vs. Hartar Singh Sangha 2010 (10) SCC 512, wherein their Lordships held as follows: - "12. We may now summarise for convenience, the position as to who should give evidence in regard to matters involving personal knowledge: "(a)...... to (f) ....... (g) Where the law requires or contemplated the plaintiff or other party to a proceeding, to establish or prove something with reference to his 'state of mind' or 'conduct', normally the person concerned alone has to give evidence and not an attorney holder. A landlord who seeks eviction of his tenant, on the ground of his 'bona fide' need and a purchaser seeking specific performance who has to show his 'readiness and willingness' fall under this category. There is however a recognised exception to this requirement. Where all the affairs of a party are completely managed, transacted and looked after by an attorney (who may happen to be a close member), it may be possible to accept the evidence of such attorney even with reference to bona fides or 'readiness and willingness'. Examples of such attorney holders are a husband/wife exclusively managing the affairs of his/her spouse, a son/daughter exclusively managing the affairs of an old and infirm parent, a father/mother exclusively managing the affairs of a son/daughter living abroad."
(3.) As per learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner No.2 being young widow at that time and petitioner No.1 being her brother in law and duly constituted attorney, his evidence could not have been rejected. The second ground taken by the Appellate Authority was that it was not disclosed as to what business was to be started in the shop in dispute by the landlord. In this connection he has relied upon Luxmi Devi Vs. Ravinder Kumar and other 2015 (2) RCR (Rent) 511, wherein this Court has held as follows: - "10. Regarding personal necessity of the landlord, it is not required for him to disclose the type/nature of business he is going to start in the demised premises after getting it vacated from the tenant. Then it is also not required from him to show his own premises. In the case in hand respondent No.1 herein/landlord as AW -1 has stated in clear words that he requires the demised shop to run his own business. Then it is settled law that landlord is best judge to see as to which accommodation is suitable and required from him as well as his family members for the purpose of residence or to start any work. Neither the Court nor the tenant can suggest him any alternative solution for ignoring his claim of his personal use and occupation qua demised premises. The only duty of the Court is to see as to whether the alleged personal necessity of the landlord qua the demised premises for his own use and occupation is the bona fide one or otherwise. In the case in hand, there is nothing on the file to say that the alleged requirement of respondent No.1 herein (landlord) is either malafide or tainted with any ulterior motive. The sole statement of landlord that he requires the demised premises for his personal use and occupation is sufficient to prove his claim unless the same is rebutted by the tenant by bringing on record cogent and sufficient evidence to dislodge his claim. The learned Rent Controller has rightly applied the principle as laid down in case laws titled as Smt. Kala Wati v. Ram Piari and others, 2005(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 666 : 2005(3) CCC 9 and P.Suryanarayana (D) by LRs v. K.S. Muddugowramma 2004 (1) RCR 395 to the present case by holding that the alleged personal necessity of the landlord qua the demised shop is justifiable one. Then in a latest authority of this Court Narinder kumar Dureja v. Jugraj Singh Kang, 2014(1) RCR (Rent) 353, it has been laid down that the landlord is best judge qua his need/requirement. In the case in hand, it has also not come on the record that respondent No.1 herein/landlord was having property other than demised shop within the municipal limit of Malerkotla at the time of filing of instant ejectment petition. The only protection which is granted under the Act in order to safeguard the interest of the tenant is that if the landlord does not occupy the premises which he has got vacated from the tenant within the prescribed period, then tenant can approach the learned Rent Controller for restoring his possession over the demised premises as per the provision of sub -Sections 4 and 4 -A of Section 13 of the Act as the case may be" ;