Judgment:
K. Kannan, J.
1. Above Civil Revision No. 4738 of 2004 and Civil Revision No. 240 of 2005 arise out of proceedings before the Rent Controller in Rent Petition No. 62 of 2000. The landlord has sought eviction on the ground of nonpayment of rent and for personal requirement of the landlord. The Rent Controller upheld the contention of the landlord and directed ejectment. However, as regards arrears of rent determined as payable for 24 months, the Rent Controller observed that the tenant shall have time upto 11.03.2002 for payment, failing which he should be held as liable to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of rent also. The tenant had been granted two months to vacate the premises.
2. The appeal was filed by the tenant and he had also deposited the amount as directed. His grievance was against the' finding rendered by the Rent Controller regarding the alleged personal requirement of the landlord as well as the fact that the Rent Controller decided that there had been arrears for 24 months. The Appellate Court maintained the order of ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent but however held that the plea of the landlord that the property was required for the personal occupation of the landlord had not been established. The Appellate Authority observed that putting himself in the place of the landlord, he found that the element of need to occupy the premises in dispute was missing in that case and further stated that reasons tendered by the landlord did not appeal to him and that he was setting aside the finding of the Rent Controller.
3. Both the landlord and the tenant filed the respective revisions, the tenant against the order of ejectment and the finding of non-payment of rent of 24 months in Civil Revision No. 4738 of 2004 and the landlord's revision against the finding relating to the personal requirement in Civil Revision No. 240 of 2005.
4. The ground urged by the tenant as regards the non-payment of rent is restricted to the rejection of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority about the genuineness of the receipts which he produced as proof of payment of rents during the relevant period. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Court found that the signature found in Ex.R-1 had been admitted to contain the signature of petitioner's mother but Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-3 relating to the period from April 1997 to May, 1999 did not contain the mother's signatures. Having regard to the denial of the signatures as found, Rent Controller found, which the Appellate Authority affirmed, that the tenant had not established by any independent evidence that the receipts were true. The authorities below observed that the sole statement of the respondent was not sufficient to prove the payment of rents. Citing 'Rakesh Wadhan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, time had been granted to the tenant to pay the rent before 11.8.2002. It appears that the appeal has been filed and the stay had been granted by the appellate court and it had directed that the rent be paid before 13.9.2002. That tenant had also deposited the sum on 12.9.2002, complying the order of the Appellate Authority. The ground of eviction, therefore, for non-payment of rent did not any longer exist, but the counsel for the tenant only urged that the finding of non-payment of rent which have been established through Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 was not tenable. The genuineness of the documents have been adjudicated by both the authorities below, as not having been established by the tenant. I do not think that there is any scope for reversal of a finding of fact and therefore, I affirm the findings rendered with regard to the genuineness of documents Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-3.
5. The Civil Revision No. 4738 of 2004 is accordingly dismissed.
6. The landlord's requirement of the premises was sought to be established by reference to the fact that the ground floor alone was in his possession and having regard to the fact that the daughter was staying with him and the son who was in Canada was also visiting him periodically, the property in the hands of the tenant at the first floor was necessary. Learned Counsel appearing for the tenant contended that the landlord had deliberately concealed the fact that the daughter had been married and she was living away elsewhere in Sector 27, Chandigarh and there was no necessity to secure the ejectment to accommodate his daughter. The landlord however had placed evidence before the Rent Controller that his daughter and grand child were living only with him and even the school records had been furnished to establish that the child had been shown as only a resident in the premises where the landlord was living. It was also in evidence that there was an estrangement between his daughter and son-in-law. It was, therefore, contended that she had perforce to reside only with the father-landlord.
7. All that the law requires under Section 13(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is that the landlord shall not have another building in the same urban area nor should have vacated such building without reasonable cause. The learned Counsel for the tenant relied on the decision of the Full Bench in Banke Ram v. Sarasti Dev (1977) 79 P.L.R. 112 (F.B.), underlining the requirement of specific pleadings regarding the absence of any other property in the occupation of the landlord. The requirement of pleadings of having to state so will not be breached by a non-reference to the existence of an accommodation of his son-in-law. This assumes now no significance if we consider the fact that the daughter herself was not even living with her husband. The reversal of the fact rendered by the Appellate Authority that the landlord had not established his need is far from convincing. The appellate authority failed to refer to the particular documentary evidence adduced by the landlord that the daughter and grand child were living only with the landlord. The landlord would be the best judge to consider the adequacy of his accommodation and the tenant cannot urge that the size of property already held by him is sufficient. With increasing need of the family when the size of the family increases, adequacy of the existing accommodation is best left to the judgment of the respective landlords. Courts cannot make an artificial construct as to what would be an appropriate area for occupation of the landlord. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has ruled in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Limited : AIR1999SC100 , that tenant is nobody to dictate the terms to the landlord in the matter of bona fide requirement. On this basis a judgment rendered by this Court in Ashwani Chatlay v. Brig. H.S. Dhillon 2003(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 131, that a landlord and his son both retired from Army spelling out the need for the benefit of his son additional accommodation cannot be doubted. It said that it is for the landlord to consider his need and personal necessity, so long as it is not wishful and fanciful. The finding rendered by the Rent Controller, therefore, is restored and the appellate authority's finding is set aside.
8. The Civil Revision filed by the landlord is allowed.
9. In the circumstances on joint conspectus of relevant materials, I set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and find that the landlord is entitled to obtain ejectment of the premises. The time for eviction is three months. There shall be no direction as to costs.