JUDGMENT
N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This is tenant’s revision petition against the orders of the authorities below vide which order of eviction has been passed, against him.
2. Briefly stated, Ram Dass landlord filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) against the tenants on the grounds of non-payment of rent and the premises being required for personal occupation of the landlord and his family. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Rent Controller, respondents put in appearance and controverted the allegations made in the application. The Rent Controller, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:-
“(1) Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the grounds mentioned in paras Nos. 7 to 10 of the application? O. P. A.
2. Relief.
3. The landlord in support of his contention stated that the demised premises is needed for his personal use and occupation and that of his family members namely his sons Vijay Dewan, Rajinder Dewan and Gopal Dewan. He himself appeared as A.W. 1 and examined Rajinder Paul as A.W. 2 and Amrit Lal Verma as A.W.3. It has come in evidence that the landlord has accommodation consisting of two rooms, a Baithak and a bath-room in Mohalla Diwana, Maler-kotla, which according to the landlord is insufficient in view of the number of his family members who are presently residing with him. Both his sons Gopal Dewan and Rajinder Dewan are married. Rajinder Dewan has also got a son. Besides, his other son namely Vijay Dewan is residing separately for the last so many years in view of the lack of accommodation. Landlord’s three married daughters also occasionally visit their parental house. It has also come in evidence that the area of this house is 11 feet x 9 feet. With these averments, the landlord claimed possession of the accommodation which is in possession of the tenants. As proved on record, the tenants have in their possession a room, a Chhapar and a small courtyard. The Rent Controller, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accommodation with the landlord is too insufficient and accordingly ordered the eviction of the tenants vide order dated January 15, 1985.
4. The tenants, feeling dissatisfied with the order of the Rent Controller, filed appeal before the Appellate Authority, who also found no merit in the appeal and thus dismissed the same.
5. In this revision petition, counsel for the petitioner-tenant has tried to assail the findings of the authorities below on the ground that the conclusion of the authorities below is based upon improper appreciation of evidence which has resulted in failure of justice. Besides this need of the landlord to seek eviction of the tenants from the premises in dispute for his married sons cannot be deemed to be the need of the landlord nor is covered under Section 13 (3) (i) of the Act since there is specific provision in this regard as contained in Section 13 (3) (iv) (a) (b) of the Act. Besides this, the counsel for the tenant-petitioner argued that the accommodation sought does not form part of the same building and is located at a distance of about two/three furlongs from the property which is in occupation of the landlord.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record very carefully.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to raise the argument that Section 13 (3) (a) envisages eviction of a tenant in case such an accommodation is needed for the personal occupation of the landlord and that too in case the landlord is not in occupation of another residential accommodation. Since the eviction is being sought for the reason that the married sons of the landlord, who are living with him need such an accommodation, that the same does not come within the ambit of the above-referred provision. The counsel further contended that to seek eviction of accommodation to be provided to the married sons of the landlord, there is specific provision contained in Section 13 (3) (iv) (a) (b) of the Act and admittedly no such claim having been made in the eviction application, this petition deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. I have carefully examined the contention raised by the learned counsel and am of the opinion that the same is without any merit. There is no denying the fact that the landlord’s family consists of three married sons and their children. The present accommodation with him consists of barely two rooms, a store, a kitchen and a bath-room. In fact one son of the landlord is living in a rented accommodation in view of the insufficiency of the accommodation with the landlord The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the findings of the Courts below as regards the number of the members of the landlord’s family who are presently residing with him nor with regard to the accommodation which is in their occupation. The legal position which is sought to be raised now, in fact, already stands settled by tie Full Bench judgment reported as Sant Ram Des Raj v. Karam Chand, (1962) 64 P. L. R. 758. The precise question which came up for consideration before the Full Bench reads as under:–
“Whether the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant under him under Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the Act having established that his application has been made in good faith for his own occupation, is still not entitled to the eviction of the tenant because he has another premises in his occupation in the same area which do not meet his requirements and are not adequate for his needs.”
8 The Bench considered the scope of the provision contained in Section 13 (3) (a) (i) (b)-he is not occupying another residential accommodation in the urban area concerned.
9 As observed by the Full Bench, the word “another” cannot be deemed to be synonymous with “any”. All that to be seen is as to whether the application for eviction of the tenant has been made in good faith and that the landlord requires the premises for his own occupation and that of his family members and further that the premises already in his occupation do not meet the requirements and needs. Merely for the reason that eviction application is in respect of a property which is somewhat away from the present residence of the landlord is no ground to deny him the desired relief. The Act does not envisage that the accommodation required must be under one roof or contiguous to the existing accommodation. If the argument of learned counsel is accepted, then the provision contained in Section 13 (3) (i) of the Act would become redundant as the landlord would not be in a position to get the possession of the property despite having proved his bona fide need to the hilt. Even of facts; the whole accommodation, that is accommodation presently in the occupation of the landlord as well as the accommodation which is subject matter of this revision petition which barely consists of a room, would just suffice the need of the landlord and his family members. No illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel nor the same is discernible on perusal of the orders of the Courts below. Thus I find no merit in this revision and dismiss the same.
10 Since the petitioner has to search for an alternative accommodation I grant him three month’s time to vacate the premises subject to his depositing all the arrears of rent by the 15 May, 1991. Parties to bear their own costs.