Vidya And Another vs Jarnail Singh And Others on 17 November, 2008

CR No. 6313 of 2008                    1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                             CR No.6313 of 2008
                            Decided on : 17-11-2008


Vidya and another                                  ....Petitioners

                                VERSUS

Jarnail Singh and others.
                                                   ....Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

Present:- Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners.

MAHESH GROVER, J

The only ground that has been raised while challenging the order

of the learned Rent Controller passed pursuant to the provisions of Section

13 B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is that, the bona

fide need of the respondent-landlord is neither reflected in the petition nor

established by way of evidence on record. It is pleaded that the respondent-

landlord himself has stated in his petition that he intends to return to India

intermittently and occupy the premises and use it for his personal need

while on his visit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that such a need can

never be termed to be bona fide as it has nowhere has been stated that the

landlord-respondent wants to occupy and reside in the premises

permanently. It has further been contended that the petitioner is only in

possession of one room and kitchen out of eight rooms and three kitchens.

Therefore, even if the prayer of the respondent-landlord is taken to be

correct then the premises in his possession is sufficient to meet his
CR No. 6313 of 2008 2

necessity.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the

considered opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner cannot be accepted. The need of the landlord is to be viewed

from his own perspective and there is no requirement of permanent

residence in India under the provisions of Section 13 B of the Act. A

desirous landlord who wishes to return to his native country may require the

premises while on his visit. That apart the plea of the learned counsel for

the petitioner that remaining seven rooms and two kitchens are sufficient to

meet the requirement of the landlord is also mis-placed. A tenant can never

dictate to a landlord as to what his requirements are and it is for the landlord

to judge for himself as to what are his needs and how best he wishes to

utilise his premises.

No merit.

Dismissed.

November 17, 2008                                   (Mahesh Grover)
rekha                                                 Judge