S.P.GOYAL,J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as applicable to the Union Territory, Chandigarh, against the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 18, 1978, confirming order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.
(2.) THE eviction has been sought on the ground of personal necessity. The two authorities below after taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties recorded a concurrent finding that the respondents needed the accommodation in dispute for their personal occupation. The revision petition was admitted on the ground, as incorporated in the admitting note, that three rooms in the upper storey fell vacant and were leased out and this fact has not been considered by the appellate Court. On going through the evidence, I find that this averment has no basis. This petition deserves to be dismissed on this score alone. However, I may also notice the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the first instance it was contended that admittedly rooms have been falling vacant on the first floor but nothing was said about them in the petition and instead it is stated that the petitioner has not vacated any accommodation after the amendment of the Act. From the perusal of statement of Smt. Tej Kaur, respondent, it is evident that one room and a store fell vacant and it was leased out. Thereafter, again, one room fell vacant and it was also leased out. Legally speaking, it may be stated that the moment the room fell vacant, the landlord came in its possession but a common man is not expected to know this implication of law. When a room fell vacant which could not satisfy the requirement of the landlords on the first floor it was, in routine, leased out as the respondents have no other source of living except the rental income. Therefore, by leasing out the rooms which fell vacant occasionally, the landlords cannot be said to have vacated such accommodation within the meaning of Section 13(3)(a)(c) of the Act.
(3.) IT was next contended that the landlords admittedly are in possession of two rooms and kitchen on the ground floor and one room and a store fell vacant on the first floor. If there was a genuine need, they could occupy that accommodation which was sufficient for their need. I do not find any merit in this contention. It is admitted by the petitioner in his statement that the accommodation on the ground floor fell vacant during the pendency of the proceedings but it is not known as to when the accommodation on the first floor fell vacant and whether it was available to the landlords when the ground floor accommodation came into their possession. Moreover, as stated by Smt. Tej Kaur, respondent No. 1 she has five children, two of whom are grown up daughters. The demand by her, therefore, was not unreasonable because, as stated by her, it was not safe to share accommodation with strangers in view of the grown up daughters.;