Judgment:
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the tenant. He is aggrieved against the order passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the judgment passed by the Rent Controller was set aside and ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlady was accepted and eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of personal necessity was ordered. Landlady Hardyal Dhillon preferred an eviction petition stating that she was owner and landlady of SCF No. 77, Sector 47, Chandigarh and petitioner was tenant over the first floor except one store adjoining the bathroom of SCF No. 77, Sector 47, Chandigarh. She has further averred that rate of rent of the demised premises was fixed at Rs. 1,000/- p.m. excluding water and electricity charges. It is further averred that conduct of the tenant in paying the rent has been irregular. It was stated that petitioner was aged about 70 years. She along with her husband was staying in United States and in India also i.e. for 8 months in the United States and 4 months in Chandigarh. It was further averred that petitioner's husband was 80 years and was suffering from Cancer and she herself was diabetic and asthmatic and, therefore, they decided to permanently shift in the demised premises at Chandigarh. This assertion made in the eviction petition was disputed by the tenant who caused appearance on serving of the notice and filed written statement, wherein it was stated that premises are not required by the landlady for her own use and occupation. Replication was filed and thereafter following issues were formulated by the Rent Controller:
(1) Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.5.1996?
(1A) That the petitioner required the demised premises for her own use and occupation of her husband? OPP
(2) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR
(3) Whether the petitioner is guilty of suppression of true and material facts from the court? OPR
(4) Relief.
Since the amount of rent was tendered and the same was accepted by the landlady without any protest, therefore, the issue regarding non payment of rent was decided in favour of the tenant.
2. On the ground of personal necessity, the Rent Controller relied upon the deposition of the tenant that petitioner-landlady was owner of House No. 94, Sector 6, Panchkula which was 1-Kanal house. The ground floor of the house at Panchkula was rented out to Haryana Government and landlady was residing on the first floor of the house. It was stated that she had better facilities at Panchkula and, therefore, ground of personal necessity cannot be accepted. The Rent Controller also took into consideration the fact that Panchkula where landlady is having one big house in her possession, is adjacent to Chandigarh. Each and every facility including medical facility was available to her at Panchkula and, therefore, dismissed the eviction petition. Aggrieved against the same, landlady had preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority had held that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and has the complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the Court to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. Appellate Authority also held that even though accommodation at Panchkula was not disclosed, that would not amount to suppression of facts. It also took into consideration the testimony of the landlady that her sons are residing in United States and they want to come back to India.
3. It has been stated before me by Mr. Mahajan, appearing for the petitioner that during the pendency of the revision petition, husband of the landlady has expired. Mr. Mahajan has argued that once it has come in evidence that the demised premises of which eviction is sought, is a first floor of Shop-cum-Flat and is situated in a market place, therefore, for an old lady to reside on first floor in a market, would be inconvenient when she is residing in a posh locality in Panchkula on first floor having accommodation of 4-5 rooms with attached toilets. It has been further submitted by Mr. Mahajan that on the first floor of which the landlady is seeking eviction consists only two rooms of 10' x 10' and bathroom is about 20 feet away. Mr. Mahajan has placed reliance on R.K. Jain v. Shri Khazan 1980 (1) R.L.R. 526; Shri Jiwan Dass v. Satish Kumari 1980 (1) R.L.R. 718; Smt. Kamla Chopra v. Nathu Ram Sud 1980 (2) R.L.R. 701; Mrs. Mohini Suraj Bhan v. Sh. Vinod Kumar Mittal 1985 (1) R.C.R. 574 and Mukhtiar Singh v. Atma Singh Berar 1999 (2) R.C.R. 121.
4. Submissions made by counsel for the petitioner have been vehemently contested by Mr. Rajeev Gupta appearing for the landlady. He has stated that Panchkula is a satellite town of Chandigarh. Not only this, as compared to Chandigarh, Panchkula lacking in civic and other amenities.
5. He has further relied upon observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. Traders & Agencies : AIR1997SC59 and Single Bench judgments of this Court rendered in Lalita Gupta v. Mahesh Kumar Gupta 2008 (1) R.C.R. 499 and Sumesh Gupta v. Shamila Gupta 2002 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 202 to urge that need of the landlord is to be taken from the view point of the landlord and tenant cannot suggest that where landlord should reside.
6. The judgments relied upon by Mr. Mahajan are not applicable to the facts of the present case as it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that it is not wish of the landlord which is to be taken into consideration but his bonafide need.
7. Once the landlady has decided to reside at Chandigarh where better facilities and standard of living are available, this Court cannot say that she should continue to reside at Panchkula. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere in the well reasoned findings of the Appellate Authority and the present petition is dismissed.