Smt. Surinder Kataria And Others vs Yash Pal on 18 November, 2008

CR No. 6326 of 2008                     1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                            CR No. 6326 of 2008
                           Decided on : 18-11-2008


Smt. Surinder Kataria and others
                                                    ....Petitioners


                                VERSUS

Yash Pal

                                                    ....Respondent

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

Present:- Mr. Ashok Aneja, Advocate
for the petitioners.

MAHESH GROVER, J

This petition is directed against the order of the Appellate

Authority dated 17.72007.

The respondent-landlord preferred an eviction petition under the

provisions of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,

1949. Three grounds of ejectment pleaded by him are as under:-

i)         non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1995

ii)        that he wants the premises for his own use and occupation.

iii)       that the building is unfit for human habitation.

The Rent Controller declined the petition but the Appellate

Authority reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller which has

resulted in the filing of the present petition.

It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that so

far as the rent was concerned, it has been paid, therefore, this ground was
CR No. 6326 of 2008 2

not available to the respondent. So far as other grounds are concerned, plea

of the respondent cannot be termed to be bona fide as initially when the

petition was filed his wife was yet to retire in 1 ½ year. During the

pendency of the petition she had retired and the respondent too has retired

but he has not shifted to the accommodation, the portion of which is in his

occupation. It was contended that four rooms are still available but the very

fact that the respondent has not shifted to this building implies that his need

is not bona fide. It was further contended that there was no evidence to

show that the building is unfit for human habitation.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused

the impugned order.

There is no denying the fact that the wife of the petitioner has

since retired from service. At the time when the petition was initiated she

was due to retire. It has not been denied that the respondent has retired and

is more than 60 years of age. It is also settled principle of law that the need

of the landlord is to be viewed from the perspective of the landlord and not

from that of the tenant. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as ‘Sarla

Ahuja versus United India Insurance Company Ltd.’ 1998(2) RCR (Civil)

533 has observed as follows:-

“14. The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of

Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for

occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a

landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own

occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the

presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other

conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord
CR No. 6326 of 2008 3

shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw

a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It

is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms

of the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without

getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the

question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is

quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the

landlord could have adjusted himself”

When the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are tested on

the facts of the present case, it becomes clear that the need of the landlord is

bona fide. In the evening of his life, he wants to settle down in his own

house which is not fit for human habitation which is reflected from

sufficient material on record.

In this view of the matter, revision petition being devoid of any

merit is hereby dismissed.

November 18, 2008                                   (Mahesh Grover)
rekha                                                 Judge