Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The landlord has filed the present revision petition to challenge the orders whereby his ejectment petition was dismissed by both the Courts below.
2. The petitioner is owner of residential building situated at Ashram Road, Charkhi Dadri. A portion marked by letter CPU was let out to the respondent on monthly rent of Rs. 160/- per month. However, the rent was subsequently increased to Rs. 200/- per month. The landlord has been residing in the fist floor in the portion shown by letter EFGH in the site plan. The petitioner-landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant-respondent from the ground floor on the ground that he requires the premises for his bona fide necessity. He also stated that the double storey house has been partitioned between the petitioner and his elder son.
3. The respondent contested the petition and contended that the petitioner has been letting out half portion of the first floor on rent to different persons and he does not require the premises for his bona fide necessity.
4. The Courts below dismissed the ejectment petition holding that although the family of the landlord consists of two sons and seven daughters yet at the time of filing the petition, four daughters had already been married and the petitioner being in possession of godown and one room on the ground floor and, therefore, bona fide requirement of the landlord is not proved. The appellate authority found that the landlord is in possession of three rooms on first floor apart from one godown and one room on ground floor and thus the landlord has no bona fide necessity.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has a large family to support which consists of not only his wife, two sons and seven daughters but also three grand sons from one of his sons. It is also stated that with the passage of time, the other son has also married and the requirement of the landlord has been increased. In support of such averments, he has placed an application for additional evidence as well to the effect that Suresh, the other son got married on 28.11.1991. Counsel for the petitioner further states that even if the plea of the partition between the landlord and son Ram Bhagat is not accepted but still the petitioner has proved bona fide requirement of entire house for himself and for his family members.
6. Learned counsel relied upon Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 625 (S.C.). In that case, the Supreme Court has held that the expression 'for his own use' as occurring in Section 13(3)(a)(ii)(a) of the Act cannot be narrowly construed. It must be assigned a wider, liberal and practical meaning. The requirement is not the requirement of the landlord alone in the sense that the landlord must for himself requires the accommodation and to fulfil the requirement he must himself physically occupy the premises. The requirement of a member of the family or of a person on whom the landlord is dependent or who is dependant on the landlord can be considered to be requirement of the landlord for his own use. It was further held that in view of the social or socio-religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region to which the landlord belongs, it may be the obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. The Supreme Court concluded which reads as under:-
'We have already noticed that the purpose of the Act is to restrict increase of rent and the eviction, one of them being the requirement of the landlord. We have to strike a balance between the need of protecting the tenants from unjustified eviction and the need for eviction when ground for eviction is one such as the requirement of the landlord. If we do not meaningfully construe the concept of requirement the provisions may suffer from the risk of being branded as unreasonable, arbitrary or as placing uncalled-for and unreasonable restrictions on the right of the owner to hold and use his property. We cannot place a construction on the expression 'for his own use' in such a way as to deny the landlord a right to evict his tenant when he needs the accommodation for his own son to settle himself well in his life. We have to give colour and content to the expression and provide the skin of a living thought to the skeleton of the words which the legislature has not itself chosen to define. The Indian society, its customs and requirements and the context where the provisions is set in the legislation are the guides leading to acceptance of the meaning which have chosen to assign to the words' for his own use' in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act.
7. However, the counsel for the respondent state that the Courts have gone into facts of the case and returned the concurrent finding that the premises are not required for the bone fide use of the landlord and therefore, no interference is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
8. The extent of the family of the landlord could not be disputed by the tenant. The only argument was that Ram Bhagat is putting up at Delhi as he was married in 1983 and there is nothing on record to conclude that any partition has taken place. Therefore, the landlord has failed to prove the bona fide requhement.
9. The statement of landlord that his family consists of 15 members including three grand sons has not been rebutted by the tenant except by putting of suggestion in the cross-examination. The landlord is residing on the first floor which consists of three rooms. The landlord has a right to be comfortable in his house. Three rooms are insufficient for husband and wife,married son- Ram Bhagat and grand sons of the landlord as well as unmarried daughters visiting married daughters. Even during the pendency of the proceedings, the other son Suresh also married. The premises are also required for visiting daughters and other family members. By no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that three rooms on the first floor, one room and one godown on the ground floor which according to landlord is being used for the purposes of storing material in connection with business are sufficient for a large family of landlord.
10. The Courts below have rejected the stand of the landlord that there was partition in the family and he has a godown and one room on the ground floor and these premises can well be used for the purpose of residence of Ram Bhagat, if necessary. Thus, if there is no partition, the landlord is entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant for the requirement of his family which consists of his married son Ram Bhagat as well as other family members. The partition or no partition the requirement is that of the family of landlord.
11. Consequently, I find that the findings recorded by the Courts below are whollyunjustified, suffers from material irregularity and illegality. Thus, I allow the present petition, set aside the order passed by the Courts below and direct the tenant to vacate thepremises within three months provided the tenant submits an undertaking by way of affidavit before the trial Court to hand over the physical vacant possession of the tenantedbuilding within three months and pay entire arrears of rent and to pay monthly rent tillthe vacation of the building within one month from today. However, if the tenant-respondent fails to furnish such undertaking, the landlord-petitioner shall be entitled toexecute the ejectment order.