Ranjit Singh, J.
1. Petitioner Smt. Lalita Gupta, tenant in House No. 3208, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh, has filed this revision petition impugning the orders of her eviction as passed by the Appellate Court up-setting the view of the Rent Controller declining the prayer of the respondent for eviction of the petitioner. Respondent Mahesh Kumar Gupta is an Advocate and has filed this petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act seeking eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent and that he required the same for his bonafide personal use and occupation. The respondent, who is a practicing Advocate at Chandigarh and living on the ground floor of House No. 3356, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh with his father has sought eviction of the petitioner pleading that he needs the house for his personal use. The eight marlas house where he is presently staying as a licencee of his father, statedly is having insufficient accommodation for him and his family. Therefore, he after getting the house vacated, wants to live in his own house which he has bought vide registered sale deed dated 21.1.2003. The respondent has duly informed the petitioner-tenant in this regard. The petitioner had further disclosed that he has a family consisting of wife and two sons, who are studying in 7th and 9th classes and. thus, he would require the house which he has purchased for his own use. This house is comprising of drawing room, dining room, two bed rooms, a guest room, a store, a toilet, bath-room, kitchen besides front and back verandah.
2. The petitioner, when put to notice, appeared and filed a written statement. The petitioner pleaded that present petition was liable to be stayed on the ground that the earlier petition filed by previous landlady Amrit Kaur on the ground of non-payment of rent was pending and during the pendency of the same, second petition would not be maintainable. It is stated that the respondent does not need the premises which he has knowingly purchased at much lower price than the actual market value and with the purpose only to make money by selling the same at the higher rate after getting it vacated from the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the previous owner had filed a petition for eviction on the ground of personal necessity which was dismissed. The appeal filed against the same order was pending before the court which was also in the knowledge of the respondent. It is, thus, pleaded that the present petition was not maintainable as the appeal filed by previous owner was still pending. It is submitted that the petitioner has paid rent and there is sufficient accommodation available in the house for the respondent where he is staying with his parents. It is claimed that the said house has been rented out again and again to different tenants.
3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed mainly to the effect that whether the petitioner would require this property for his bonafide use and occupation and if the respondent is liable to be evicted therefrom. The Rent Controller, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, declined the application filed by the respondent which he impugned by filing an appeal. The Appellate Court, however, took a view that the respondent was able to establish his personal need and directed ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises. He has now filed this revision petition.
4. The respondent, who is a practicing Advocate, has prayed for eviction of the petitioner from the demised house claiming his personal need. The bonafide requirement of the house is advocated on the ground that the respondent is presently living with his father, where the accommodation is not sufficient enough for his family, which is consisting of wife and two sons and for running the office as an Advocate. The respondent has, thus, made out a case for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he would need this house for his personal bonafide use. On the other hand, the petitioner has vehemently contended that the respondent is going to settle abroad permanently and would not need this premises for his personal use and occupation and only intention is to sell the same after getting it vacated from the petitioner.
5. Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior counsel representing the petitioner has laid much emphasis on the aspect that respondent is likely to settle in Canada and has referred to evidence in this regard, which, according to the counsel has not been properly appreciated. The counsel submits that the respondent had bought this house fully knowing that it was rented to a tenant and thus had bought it at a much lower price for the purpose of selling the same to make profit. He would also raise an objection in regard to maintainability of the eviction petition on the ground that the present petition could not have been filed during the pendency of the petition which had been filed by previous landlady Amrit Kaur. Mr. Sarin has referred to number of judgments in support of his contention to say that the need is required to be shown as bonafide and has to be more than wish and desire.
6. The main emphasis of Mr. Sarin, however, was on the aspect of intention of the respondent to shift to Canada for which he had heavily relied on the act of the respondent for applying for immigration to Canada. In fact, no mention of this aspect is found in the pleadings made before the Rent Controller. During the pendency of appeal, the petitioner had filed an application for amendment of a written statement to point out that the respondent had applied for permanent immigration to Canada, which fact had come to his knowledge during the pendency of appeal. The petitioner had accordingly filed this application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The respondent herein had filed a reply to the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and while responding to this allegation he had averred that he had applied for immigration to Canada in the year 2001, but did not receive any reply from the concerned authority in spite of various representations. The respondent has also disclosed that he was more than 48 years old (on the date of filing this affidavit) and as such was no more intended to immigrate to Canada as he is well settled in India as an Advocate. The respondent disclosed that both his children were studying in higher classes in College and accordingly pleaded that this application was filed with an intention to delay the proceedings as the petitioner well knew about these facts even during the pendency of the rent petition. The amended written statement was permitted to be filed without objection.
7. This stand of the respondent taken during the pendency of appeal is exploited by the petitioner during the pendency of the present revision petition, to say that the petitioner has not fairly disclosed the entire facts before the court and as such has tried to mislead which would dis-entitle him to any relief. Misc. Petition No. 11188-CII of 2007 is filed before this Court to disclose that the petitioner had learnt from the website of Canadian Embassy that respondent-landlord had got a call for interview pursuant to his application seeking permanent residence in Canada for June 5, 2007. This is highlighted in contrast to the stand taken by the respondent in his affidavit during the pendency of appeal, which was that he was no more interested in immigrating to Canada, application for which had been filed long ago in the year 2001. Mr. Sarin would say that the petitioner in fact was still pursuing his case for permanent immigration to Canada and as such cannot be considered to be having bonafide need of this house for his personal use and occupation.
8. The respondent has filed reply to this application to bring on record these subsequent events. In response, it is disclosed that he had kept this application of permanent residency open for the children and in case they are unable to get suitable study and job in India, they may be able to study and find a suitable job in Canada. The respondent has, however, pointed out that the application with the High Commission of Canada was under process and it is still not clear how much time it will take. He is otherwise very emphatic in saying that he has intention to carry on with his profession in Chandigarh and does not want to immigrate to Canada. Rather he stated that having spent so many years in profession of law at Chandigarh, he cannot afford to close his profession. The respondent has not denied that he was called for interview on 5.6.2007 which he attended. He has claimed that he is not aware of the final outcome of the interview. Still, the respondent has taken a specific stand that gven if he got visa, he would neither leave the profession nor settle permanently in Canada.
9. The respondent has rather over emphasized this aspect and has averred in his reply as under:
It is made clear at the cost of repetition that replying respondent, may go to Canada to fulfill the requirements of Canadian Govt., with regard to settlement of children and would come back to Chandigarh and will continue with his practice at Chandigarh.
10. This aspect has been subject matter of hot debate between the parties. Mr. Sarin Ohas highlighted the earlier stand taken by the respondent before the Appellate Court to compare it with the change in stance, now taken by the respondent when he is caught. On the other hand, Mr. S.D. Sharma, representing the respondent would say that respondent had been rather clear and emphatic in asserting that he would never leave the profession and had no intention to settle in Canada even if he gets an immigration, which, according to the counsel is or may be utilised for the purpose of settling or for the benefit of his children. Mr. Sarin would submit that this subsequent event is required to be taken into consideration and given due effect. He accordingly prays that case may be remanded back to the Appellate Authority for deciding afresh by taking into consideration the changed stance of the respondent and the resultant effect thereof on the outcome of the eviction petition. Mr. Sharma, on the other hand, would oppose this line and say that there is no such need, specially so when the respondent has denied the allegation that he is immigrating to Canada with over emphasis.
11. Parties have cited a large number of judgments on different aspects of the issues, which would burden the record rather than of much assistance. The aspects, which are highlighted by Mr. Sarin, may not need support of any judgment these being well settled. To be fair to the counsel, these may need a mention lest it is stated that the submissions made by the counsel are not considered or appreciated.
12. The counsel for the petitioner has cited judgments on different aspect of submissions advanced by him. One set of judgments relates to the aspects that subsequent events can be taken into consideration for deciding the rent petition. In this regard, the counsel has referred to case of Add Jamshed Frenchman (D) by LRs. v. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust and Ors. : AIR2005SC996 . In this case, tenant was permitted to produce certain additional documents during the stage of appeal by holding that the documents sought to be produced by the tenant were material and if substantiated, would have a material effect on the case of landlords of their bona fide need of the suit premises. It is pleaded that the subsequent events and change of stand, thus, would be relevant and would need investigation. Reference is then made to the case of Salig Ram and Anr. v. Shiv Shankar and Ors. A.I.R. 1971 Punjab and Haryana 437 to say that replication is a part of pleadings and anything which is specifically stated therein for the first time, has to be controverted, and if not so controverted, it must be assumed that the plea raised in replication was accepted. In support of this proposition, reliance is also placed on the case of Mateshwar Dayal v. Amar Singh , wherein it is held that the court can see the plaint and the replication also. In case of Rajesh Dewan v. Soma Watt Aggarwal (2007-4) 148 P.L.R. 655 replication is held to be a part of pleadings and anything which is specifically stated for the first time is to be controverted. Otherwise, it is to be assumed that the plea raised in the replication was accepted.
13. Proceeding further, number of judgments have been cited in regard to the scope of revisional jurisdiction and also in regard to appreciation of evidence. Reference is made to Phiroze Bamanji Desai v. Chandrakant M.Patel and Ors. : [1974]3SCR267 . It is held in this case that juridical possession of other premises by landlord can be considered in determining the bona fide need and requirement of the landlord. As per this judgment, what is required to be seen is whether landlord is juridically in possession of other premises, but whether they were available to him for occupation so that he cannot be said to need the premises in question. Commenting about the scope of revisional jurisdiction, it is held that the High Court can only interfere if there is miscarriage of justice due to mistake of law. The High Court cannot reassess the finding of fact merely because it thinks that interference with a finding of fact merely is required because appreciation of the evidence by the lower court is wrong and the court has reached a wrong finding.
14. Of course number of judgments are cited to say that bona fide requirement of a landlord must be more than a mere wish or impulse or desire on the part of the landlord. The element of need may be present both in 'require' and 'desire', but distinction lies in the intensity of a need. Mr.Sarin has taken support for this proposition from Kem-paiah v. Lingaiah and Ors. : (2001)8SCC718 . Reference in this regard is also made to Mis Rahahhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajendra K. Tandon 1998(1) R.C.R. 482, S.J. Ebenezer v. Velayudhan and Ors.? : AIR1998SC746 and Salim Ahmed v. Surjit Kumar Sahai (1998-3) 120 P.L.R. 182. Reference is also made to the case of Shri Rattan Chand Jain v. Shri Charan Singh 1978(1) R.C.R. 265 to say that the view that statement of a landlord regarding personal requirement should originally be accepted is no longer a correct view and this statement cannot be accepted unless there is an element of need and not mere desire.
15. To rebut the argument advanced by the respondent landlord that there are enough safe-guards provided under the Act in case the landlord does not occupy the premises after getting it vacated, it is stated that this provision is totally illusory and can be defeated by a landlord by occupying the premises. Reference in this regard is made to case of Smt. Indumati v. Kirpal Singh Lamba (1983) 85 P.L.R. 737. Mr. Sarin has then placed strong reliance on the case of Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh (2003-1) 133 P.L.R. 371 (S.C.) to say that the event which occurred pendent lite can be noticed by the court. Reliance is placed on the observation made in this case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that the power of the court to take note of the subsequent events is well settled and undoubted.
16. On the other hand, the respondent-landlord has also referred to certain judgments to urge that bona fide requirement of a landlord is always the prerogative of the landlord and he is to decide for what purpose he requires the premises. Reference is made to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salt Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalahai Prahhulal and Ors. : AIR2006SC770 to say that the date on which bona fide requirement of a landlord is to be adjudged as a normal rule is to be determined on the date of petition and subsequent events can be taken into consideration for moulding the relief, provided such events are of such a nature and dimension as to completely eclipse the need and make it lose significance altogether. Reference is then made to the case of Yudhister v. Ashok Kumar (1987-1) 91 P.L.R. 11 to say that when landlord is living as a licensee of his father and he purchases a house to seek ejectment of a tenant, his need was held to be bona fide. Case of Ajay Kumar v. Krishan Kumar and Anr. (1985-2) 88 P.L.R. 345 is pressed to say that the landlord cannot be forced to share accommodation with his father and he is entitled to seek ejectment and it matters not if the accommodation in father's house was sufficient. Reliance is also placed on the case of Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. M/s Traders & Agencies 1996(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 233 to say that it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live.
17. It is further held that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and if he intends to beneficially enjoy his own property when other property occupied by him as a tenant or on any other basis is either insecure or inconvenient, it is not for the court to dictate him to continue to occupy such premises. It is further pleaded that alternative accommodation disentitling landlord to relief of possession must be reasonable and suitable in comparison with suitable accommodation and -convenience and safety of landlord and his family members are factors relevant to be considered. This is so held in the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta : [1999]3SCR1260 . In this case only, it is held that reappraisal of evidence in exercise of revisional jurisdiction can be entered into only for limited purpose to test whether order of Rent Controller is according to law or not. Respondent has also made reference to the case of Surajmal v. Radheyshyam : AIR1988SC1345 that bonafide need of a landlord may arise subsequent to filing of eviction suit and decision of the court to bar on the ground of res judicata will not apply or operate.
18. As already noticed, the respondent is a practicing Advocate and has sought eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground of his personal need. The plea raised by the respondent is that he is presently staying with his father as a licensee and has bought this house for his own use and occupation. The respondent has projected his need on account of his professional requirement as well as due to his two grown up children, who would need separate place for their studies etc. It is the case of the respondent-landlord that accommodation where he is presently staying with his father as a licensee is not enough for him. To challenge the bonafide need of the respondent-landlord, the petitioner has mainly stressed on his intention to immigrate to Canada, which according to the petitioner would show that the need as projected and appreciated by the courts is not bona fide. To further emphasis this point, Mr. Sarin has referred to the change in stand of the respondent, which he wishes to highlight as a subsequent event with a prayer that this may now require reconsideration by the Appellate Court as this subsequent event was not available for consideration at the time of passing the impugned order. The counsel has further pointed out that these subsequent events were brought on record before this Court by filing an application which have not been denied in any manner and thus it would amount to admission on the part of the respondent-landlord. Of course reference in this regard has been made to some of the judgments referred to above.
19. I have not been able to appreciate this line of reasoning. No doubt, the petitioner-tenant has brought on record this subsequent event whereby the tenant has been called for interview which he has attended for seeking immigration to Canada, but to say that this fact has not been answered and that it would amount to some admission on the part of a landlord appears to be an argument which is off the mark. The landlord has very specifically responded to this application by filing a reply. The stand of the respondent-landlord has been noticed above. It would show that the landlord has categorically stated that he has no intention to shift to Canada or to leave the practice as an Advocate. The respondent-landlord has been quite forth right in admitting this fact that he had gone for an interview for immigration, but has very categorically stated that he may use the same for purpose of study or for other purpose for his children, but would not himself shift to Canada under any circumstances. The subsequent events are, thus, answered adequately. This can not give an indication of any admission on the part of the respondent-landlord for which detailed reference to the legal position concerning the plaint, replication etc. was needed. In fact, the respondent-landlord can have solace from the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in the case of Atma S.Berar (supra). This is also a case where landlord had a mind to shift to Canada and had offered to sell his house to a tenant. Deal did not mature and the landlord had a change of mind and decided to live in his own house in old age. The need was held bona fide. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the things do change by the time the litigation reaches upto the High Court. The life of a person does not remain static and may undergo several events in pursuit, peace and comfort. The landlord in the case of Atma S.Berar (supra) had also very candidly admitted to have written two letters for selling the accommodation to the tenant. He had then brought out that he had a change of mind and as such had decided to live in his accommodation. Hon'ble Supreme Court rather found this to be a pathetic story of the landlord and tenant litigation and observed that an old man was shuttling in search of shelter in India and Canada in the evening of his life. Going into the need of a landlord, the Supreme Court posed a question to say if the desire of a landlord to be in his own house and live comfortably could be said unnatural, illusory or a pretext or a mere pretence for getting rid of a tenant.
20. In the instant case, the respondent-landlord had never expressed his desire to shift to Canada and has constantly taken stand to say that he has no intention to leave the profession and to shift. The power of the High Court to take note of subsequent events may be well settled and undoubted, but the same is not unfettered and would certainty have some riders as is noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma S. Berar's case (supra). The subsequent events should be brought to the notice and these should be so brought to the notice of a court with the rules of procedure enabling the court to take note of such events and for affording of opportunity to the opposite party for meeting the same and that such subsequent events must have a material bearing on the right/relief of any party. This subsequent event which had been fairly answered by the respondent-landlord, in my view, would not dent the case of respondent-landlord so far as his bona-fide need for occupying the house is concerned.
21. Normal human nature, conduct and behaviour would be also relevant to see in this case. The respondent is having a standing of nearly 18 years at the Bar and is a practicing Advocate. He has grown up children and would rather not take the risk of shifting at this stage. One has also to remind oneself of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time that landlord is a best judge of his residential requirement. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own (See: Pratuva Devi v. T.V. Krishnan : (1996)5SCC353 ).
22. There is no requirement or a need to go into the debate regarding the revisional jurisdiction under the rent petitions. As has been urged, normally the rule is to determine the rights and obligations of the parties on the date of petition and subsequent events can be taken into consideration provided these are of a nature and dimension as to completely eclipse the need and make it lose significance altogether. The respondent had rightly explained the reasons for which he had been called for interview for immigration to Canada for which he had applied much earlier. He has categorically stated before the court that he had no intention to shift. There is nothing to doubt the statement of a respondent, specially when it can be said that there would be safeguards available with the tenant to seek re-occupation of the building in case the respondent-landlord sells or does not occupy the same after getting it vacated. The judgments in the cases of Yudhister and Ajay Kumar (supra) would tend to support the submissions made on behalf of the respondent landlord that when landlord was staying with his father as a licensee and has purchased a house, his need was held to be bona fide.
23. As already held, it is not for the court to dictate as to how the tenant is to live and it is for him to see and decide about his need. Mr. Sharma has referred to the case of Jai Vir v. Khushi Ram Sharma and Anr. 1980 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 122 to say that tenant will have sufficient safeguards for restoration of possession as was ordered in this case in case the respondent-landlord does not occupy the same or sells the house after evicting the tenant.
24. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and would rather dismiss this petition as it lacks in merit. The petitioner is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the shop within the statutory period of three months from today. This shall, however, be subject to the condition that the petitioner would appear before the Court of Rent Controller and file an undertaking within a period of one month from today to hand over the vacant possession on the expiry of three months. She shall also deposit the arrears of rent due in advance till the date she vacates the demised premises.