JUDGMENT
Vinod K. Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner-landlord has challenged the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as the appellate Authority, dismissing the eviction petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for ejectment of the respondents from two rooms and a store being used as a kitchen on the first floor of H. No. 1512, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh.
2. The petitioner claimed that he was owner of the house and one room on the barsati portion of the said house was given to respondent No. 1 on monthly rent of Rs. 60/-in November, 1973 and thereafter one room and a store were taken on the first floor at a monthly rent of Rs. 210/-. The tenants thereafter said to have left one room on the barsati portion and took room on the first floor and in this manner they became tenant in two rooms and store on the first floor of the house in question at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- excluding water and electricity charges. The eviction was sought on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent since 1989 and also on the ground of personal necessity that he wanted to come back to India from United Kingdom and settle in his own house at Chandigarh. He further claimed that his parents were residing at Dehradun and now they intended to live on the first floor of the said house in question as ground floor of the said house was in possession of his sister.
3. The petition was contested by the respondents wherein the stand was taken that the eviction petition had been filed for mala fide intention to pressurise the tenants to enhance the rent to Rs. 1,000/- p.m. The ground of personal necessity was denied. The tenants on appearance made tender of the rent which was held to be valid and accordingly the ground of non-payment of rent was decided against the petitioner. The ground of personal necessity was also declined primarily on the ground that the petitioner had a right to claim the ground floor which was admittedly being used by Mr. Kashmiri Lal with the permission of the petitioner. The learned courts below, therefore, also came to the conclusion that Mr. Kashmiri Lal, did not have any statutory right to retain the ground floor being a permissive user of the same. The learned courts also took note of the fact that two rooms were available with the petitioner on the first floor which he seeks to occupy. On this ground it was held that the petitioner has failed to prove his bona fide need and accordingly the petition was dismissed.
4. Mr. Arun Jain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the courts below primarily on the ground that the averments made in paras 5 and 5-A of the petition were not specifically denied and therefore the claim of the petitioner for bona fide need, stood proved. However, reading of the pleadings of the parties does not lead to any such conclusion as para 5 of the petition was specifically denied and it was also pleaded that the present petition has been filed to pressurise the respondents herein to increase rent. Similarly, para 5-A of the petition was specifically denied. Learned Counsel for the petitioner thereafter contended that the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller as well as of the appellate authority stood vitiated as they wrongly held that the petitioner had failed to produce the medical certificate regarding his disease on the basis of which he was seeking eviction of the respondents. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to Ex.PW-2/D, to contend that the certificate was duly produced on record. The certificate produced by the petitioner reads as under:
This is to certify that this gentleman is suffering with Diabetes and Arthritis. In the past he has had operation on left ear and suffers with poor hearing. He is 60 years of age and is on Income Support.
5. The reading of the certificate does not advance the case of the petitioner that he was required to come to India because of the diseases, referred to in the certificate. Thus, the learned Courts below did not commit any error in holding that the petitioner has failed to prove that he had to shift to India on medical ground.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner thereafter argued that the authorities below erred in law in proceeding with a presumption that the requirement of the landlord was not genuine. His further contention was that tenant was nobody to dictate his terms of the landlord in the matter of bona fide requirement. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the evidence led by him proved his bona fide requirement and therefore, eviction application should have been allowed. In support of this contention he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Limited (1999-1)121 P.L.R. 805 (S.C.). The learned Counsel for the petitioner thereafter placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Manmohan Sharma v. Smt Swaran Kaur (2003-1)133 P.L.R. 300 in support of his contention that as the petitioner is 60 years of age and was suffering from ailments and climate of England was not suitable, therefore, his need was to be held bona fide. However, this authority does not help the case of the petitioner as in this case the petitioner chose to prove the medical certificate as Ex.PW-2/D, which did not advance the case of the petitioner, as sought to be contended. Learned Counsel for the petitioner thereafter placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashwani Chatlay v. Brig. H.S. Dhillon 2004(1) H.R.R. 67 to contend that if the accommodation required by the petitioner was to be held genuine keeping in view his status and status of the family and could not be said to be wishful or fanciful. However, in my opinion, this judgment also does not support the case of the petitioner as he failed to prove his bona fide requirement especially when no explanation has been given as to why he couldn’t occupy the ground floor and as to why two rooms available to him were not taken possession of. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the desire of the petitioner to spend his last days of life with his family peacefully after retirement was a bona fide requirement in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh (2003-1)133 P.L.R. 371 (S.C.). This contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot also be accepted as in the present case on the available material the courts below have held that the claim of the petitioner was not justified and the petitioners’ need was not bona fide. Learned Counsel for the petitioner thereafter argued that the learned Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority has not appreciated the pleadings and evidence on record in true perspective and therefore, the findings deserve to be reversed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that it is open to this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the finding of fact as the revisional powers of this Court are wider than the power conferred under Section 115 C.P.C. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Pareed Kaka and Ors. v. Shafee Ahmed Saheb 2004(1) R.C.R. 503, Learned Counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that the tenant had acquired the alternative accommodation. This fact was duly proved on record and therefore, the learned authorities below erred in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner. In support of this contention he placed reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishwasrao v. Dadasaheb v. Shankarrao D. Kalyankar .
7. Mr. S.C.Kapoor, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the findings recorded by the authorities below. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramdoss v. K. Thangavelu , to contend that it is not open to the High Court in exercise of its re-visional jurisdiction to reassess the finding where there was concurrent finding by the learned courts below on an issue. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Patel Valmik Himatlal and Ors. v. Patel Mohanlal Mujlibhai , to contend that if different view was possible on appreciation of evidence, the same cannot be ground for High Court to substitute its own findings in place of authorities below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and find no force in this revision petition. The Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority recorded a positive finding of fact that the premises in dispute are not required bona fide by the petitioner. The said finding is based on evidence produced on record and on admitted facts that on the ground floor of the premises Mr. Kashmiri Lal was staying with the permission of the petitioner and also the fact that two rooms on first floor were also in possession of the petitioner, which he failed to occupy. It may further be noticed that the petitioner in the present case has failed to prove as to how the accommodation available to him was not sufficient for his need. The conclusion drawn by the authorities on appreciation of evidence is not in a way which defeats the provisions of the Act, so as to enable this Court to reappraise the evidence and come to a conclusion different to that arrived at by the authorities.
No merit.
Dismissed.