GOKAL CHAND MITAL,J - (1.) SMT . Sham Lata let out the first floor of 5 Marlas building consisting of two rooms and kitchen etc. to Smt. Mohinder Kaur on July 1, 1978, at monthly rent of Rs. 175/-. In 1978, the second floor (Barsati portion) was separately let out to another tenant. The landlady was in possession of the ground floor consisting of accommodation similar to the accommodation on first floor. In March 1981, the rent of the first floor was raised to Rs. 200/- per mensem. In October, 1982, an ejectment petition was filed against Smt. Mohinder Kaur who was tenant on the first floor on the ground that her children had grown up with the passage of time and the brother of her father-in-law had also started living with her as he was issueless and had no other relation except his bother, that is her father-in-law to look after him. While the Rent Controller ordered ejectment on the ground of personal necessity, the appellate authority reversed the decision and dismissed the application. This is landlady's revision.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the proceedings, the father-in-law and his brother have died and now the sole occupants of the ground floor are landlady and her three children. When her evidence was being recorded, some variance came out with regard to the ages of the children vis-a-vis the pleadings. In order to resolve the controversy about the ages, I had sent for the children since they were in Chandigarh. On questioning the children, I find that eldest child son looks to be about 19 years old, the second child is daughter who looks to be 15/16 years old and the third again a daughter looks to be about 11/12 years old. The son is undermatric and has stopped his studies. He is learning tailoring job. The elder daughter is in 10th class and the younger is in 7th class. The resume of the facts do not show that the appellate authority committed any illegality and impropriety in dismissing the application for ejectment. Even if there was some justification in letting out the premises in July 1978, there was enhancement of rent in March 1981 and the ejectment petition was filed in October, 1982. During the short span of one year and seven months since the date of enhancement of rent, the only material change which came about was that father-in-law's brother had also come to live in the house. He has since died. Therefore, that necessity has ceased. Even father-in-law had died. In the two room the landlady with the meagre income as she has, can well live and if first floor is also got vacated for her residence, she will be losing monthly income of Rs. 200/-.
(3.) THERE is a provision in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as extended to Chandigarh, for getting accommodation for a married son. Whenever the son gets married, it will be open to landlady to file ejectment application for her married son and it would be seen at that time whether a case has been made out for ejectment but for the present no case for ordering the ejectment has been made out.;