KANTA v. N. K. VYAS — 1994 DIGILAW 13 (HP)

JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—Both are tenants revision petitions against the judgment dated December 29, 1986 of the learned Appellate Authority, who had accepted the landlords appeals against dismissal of both ejectment petitions ordered by the Rent Controller, Shimla. As the petitioners are tenants of the premises in dispute in the same building and under the same landlord and also the grounds of ejectment in each one of the eviction petitions, separately filed, are the same, giving rise to common question of law and facts, it would be in the interest of justice to dispose of both the petitions by a common order. 2. Initially, three eviction petitions were filed under section 14 of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereinafter shortly referred to as the Act). During the pendency of the appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, one of the tenant, namely, Kasturi Lai expired and thus, his accommodation fell vacant due to his death. Respondent-landlord came into possession of the accommodation of said Kasturi Lai. The other eviction petitions were dismissed which were appealed against. In order to know the description of the premises with the tenants-petitioners, the particulars thereof alongwith registration number of the appeal are tabled below : SI. No. Title Registration No. Description of premises with tenant Monthly rent 1. N. K. Vyas versus Kasturi Lai C.M.A. No. 171-S/14 of 1984 One room, kitchen and bath combined Rs. 25 2. N. K. Vyas versus Mehar Chand C.M.A. No. 96-S/14 of 1985 One room, kitchen, bath and joint latrine Rs. 22 3. N. K. Vyas versus Sat Pal C.M.A. No. 210-S/10 of 1985 One room and a joint latrine Rs. 50 All these three sets under occupation of the tenants are located on the ground floor of the building belonging to the landlord—Sh. N. K. Vyas. On the date of filing of aforesaid eviction petitions, the landlord (Sh. N. K. Vyas) was married and his family constituted of himself, his wife and two minor school going children. 3. The ground of eviction alleged in para 18 of each one of the eviction petitions, was that Shri Rattan Lai Vyas, the father of the respondent, was a tenant in the building owned by the respondent since much prior to its purchase in the year 1976. As per his allegations, the family of the respondent consisted of himself, his wife and two children. As per his allegations, the family of the respondent consisted of himself, his wife and two children. The wife of respondent had got strained relations with her father-in-law, as such, respondent wanted the entire ground floor for the occupation of his family. In para 19 thereof, it was further averred that since three brothers, mother, married sisters and their families are residing with father of the respondent, as such, due to such large family, no accommodation is available to the respondent with his father. 4. In each case, the tenant pleaded that the landlord has sufficient accommodation as the set which is in occupation of Sh. Rattan Lai is in fact in possession of the landlord (N. K. Vyas). The story of tenancy of the father was mere concoction ; the father after retirement from Government service usually resides at Palampur and landlord is serving at Bilaspur. As per the tenants, landlord was in possession of six rooms with accessories and he had also constructed two rooms and kitchen recently. It, was further contended that the landlord had got vacated one room in the ground floor two months back and also rented two rooms in the top floor. The petition for eviction was contended to be with ulterior motive for increasing the rent. In the replication to each case, landlord admitted that one room of the size 8-1/2 * 6 fell vacant but the same was a store and not a room which could be used as such. He reiterated the stand taken in his petition and controverted the contentions raised by the tenants-petitioners. It was further contended in para 9 of the replication that the entire accommodation in occupation of the aforesaid three tenants constituted one compact residential unit in the giound floor because of their contiguity and location. It was also alleged that the wife and children of the landlord reside at Shimla and he visits them on week-ends. The other allegations with respect to the details of sufficient accommodation given by the tenant, was denied. The alleged new construction was also denied. 5. On the pleadings the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller, which are common in all the three petitions: 1. Whether the disputed premises are bonafide required by the petitioner for his use and occupation as well as for the use and occupation of his family members ? OPP. 2. 5. On the pleadings the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller, which are common in all the three petitions: 1. Whether the disputed premises are bonafide required by the petitioner for his use and occupation as well as for the use and occupation of his family members ? OPP. 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR. 3. Whether the petition has not been properly verified ? OPR. 4. Relief. After due trial, the Rent Controller (Shri Ravinder Parkash) in petitions at Sr. No. 1 and 2 and the Rent Controller (Sh. Rameshwar Sharma) in petition at Sr. No. 3, found that father of the petitioner retired in the year 1968 and landlord (Sh. N. K. Vyas) was living with his father till the purchase of the building in the year 1976. It was also held that since there existed a joint Hindu family headed by Shri Rattan Lai Vyas, the father of the landlord, as kanta’ thereof, and all members including the landlord were living jointly. Shri Ravinder Parkash, learned Rent Controller, further held that recently major repairs were effected in the disputed building and roofing of the building was replaced by landlord by changing dhaji walls to brick walls and in addition, the landlord had constructed kitchen and two rooms. Further, he held that accommodation with respect to room occupied by one Jiwa Nand tenant had fallen vacant which is being used as a store room ; that one more room had been let out to one Shri Negi, a personal servant of the landlord The learned Rent Controller further took note of the fact that one more room had fallen vacant which was in occupation of one Raj Kumar s/o Shri Telu Ram. Taking the accumulative effect of the above said circumstances, the learned Rent Controller ultimately held that landlord had too much accommodation and there was no genuine need. As regards existence of strained relations between the daughter-in-law and father-in-law it was held to be that of normal nature by holding that said Shri Rattan Lai Vyas was vegetarian whereas children of the landlord were non-vegetarian. 6.. As regards existence of strained relations between the daughter-in-law and father-in-law it was held to be that of normal nature by holding that said Shri Rattan Lai Vyas was vegetarian whereas children of the landlord were non-vegetarian. 6.. In the third petition, Shri Rameshwar Sharma learned Rent Controller also dismissed the eviction petition, holding that landlords wife was living with her father-in-law since 1972 and the latter being orthodox had no reasons to have strained relations with his daughter-in-law, merely because of non-vegetarian habits of his grand children Further, he was of the view that landlord had changed roof of the two rooms after the purchase of the building and further that as the rooms in occupation of the tenants are in ground floor, would not serve the purpose for the residence of the landlords wife and children, therefore all the petitions were dismissed. 7. The appellate authority, on appraisal of the evidence and also considering his inspection note pursuant to the inspection of the premises in dispute with the consent of the parties to the Us, held that the need of the landlord was genuine and bona fide ; that petitioners father was residing in the tenanted portion constituting the first floor, since prior to the purchase of the building with his family members i. e. other two sons and two married daughters, besides his wife who visit Shimla off and on. The learned Appellate Authority further held that eviction petition was not filed with an ulterior motive and it was the choice of the landlord to choose the tenants from whom he wanted to get the premises vacated According to him, the landlord being son, was not expected to file an eviction petition against his father in the normal course. As regards the other accommodation, room vacated by Jiwa Nand was held being used by the landlord as a store. The other room occupied by Negi was held to have been let out to him free of charge, for looking after the entire accommodation, being an employee of the landlords Department. As regards new construction, it was held that major repairs were effected by the appellant by replacement of roofing with a lintel and dhajji walls with brick walls and by constructing one kitchen, but no two additional looms were constructed. Thus, according to him, renovations were carried out by the landlord to make his house worth living. As regards new construction, it was held that major repairs were effected by the appellant by replacement of roofing with a lintel and dhajji walls with brick walls and by constructing one kitchen, but no two additional looms were constructed. Thus, according to him, renovations were carried out by the landlord to make his house worth living. In view of these facts and circumstances, eviction of the tenants in all the petitions was ordered vide the impugned judgment. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have carefully and minutely gone through the record. 9. Before I proceed to decide the controversy arising in between the parties, it would be essential to narrate certain admitted facts. 10. The facts emerging from the record show that initially the entire building had two units, one set of which was under the occupation of Shri Rattan Lai, the father of Sh. N. K. Vyas (Landlord) as a tenant since the year 1944-45. This tenancy portion of said Shri Rattan Lal consisted of four rooms (two big rooms and two small rooms), dining room and a kitchen. Shri Rattan Lal was the karta of the joint Hindu family, consisting of his wife, four sons and daughters. The entire family was jointly residing in the tenanted portion, constituting the first floor of the building, now in the ownership of Shri N. K. Vyas-the landlord (respondent). Record further shows that Rani of Throach was the original owner of a huge building consisting of two units. One unit consisted of the tenanted portion under occupation of Shri Rattan Lai and one room in occupation of Shri Raj Kumar tenant besides the ground floor thereof occupied by the aforesaid tenants (this one unit) was purchased by Shri N. K. Vyas vide registered sale deed on 28-7-1976. In other words, the father of respondent-Sh. N. K. Vyas was living in the tenanted portion, constituting first floor of the building since prior to its purchase by the respondent. 11. From the above, it is evidently clear that landlord Shri N. K. Vyas, after purchase of the property had constructive possession of the various sets through his tenants including his father Shri Rattan Lai Vyas. He being a member of the joint Hindu family, in the year 1976, continued to live jointly alongwith his father as such, even after its purchase. He being a member of the joint Hindu family, in the year 1976, continued to live jointly alongwith his father as such, even after its purchase. In other words, he though was the owner but was not in actual physical possession of any room in his individual capacity. Rather, his father being karta of the family, was a tenant under him. That is to say, the father and the son were two separate entities, the former being the tenant and the latter being the owner thereof. It would be worthwhile to state that the said Shri Rattan Lai died on 3-6-1992 during the pendency of the instant revision petitions. It is in the light of these facts that the Us is required to be determined by this Court. 12. The first point that has been urged on behalf of the petitioner(s) is that in the absence of any averment of the facts consisting the grounds or conditions of eviction, as contained in (sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Act) the appellate authority was not justified in passing the impugned order of eviction against the petitioners. Sub-section (3) of section 14 provides as follows: "(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession— (a) in the case of a residential building, if— (i) he requires it for his own occupation : Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned ; Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area ...” (The other portion of this provision is not relevant for our purpose, as such, the same is omitted). 13. 13. The conditions which are necessary to be fulfilled for the purpose of getting an order of eviction under sub-clause (3) are : (i) that the accommodation is needed for his own occupation, (ii) that such need must be genuine and bonafide on the part of the claimant ; (iii) that he (the landlord) must not be occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned ; and (iv) he should not have vacated such another residential building owned by him without sufficient cause within 5 years prior to the date on which the eviction application is filed, in the said urban area. There can be no doubt that under the law, pleadings and facts constituting requisite grounds are required to be pleaded in the petition and thereafter, proved at the trial for the purpose of an order of eviction against the tenant. (See ; Hasmat Rai v. Raghu Nath Prasad, AIR 1981 SC 1711 and Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas Mahajan, ILR 1979 HP Series, I. Further it has been observed that any amount of proof without appropriate pleading is generally of no relevance. This statement of law has been laid down in the case of Duggi Veer a Venketa Gopala Satya Narayana v. Sakala Veera Raghavaiah and another, (1987) 1 SCC 254, in detail and the observations thereof are binding on this Court. I am, however, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of eviction in the instant case for the reasons stated hereinafter. 14. Admittedly, Rattan Lai Vyas, the father of the landlord retired from Government service in the year 1968. He continued to be in occupation of the premises located in the first floor as a tenant till 28-7-1976, the date of purchase of the property by the respondent-landlord. Also, respondent was married in the year 1972. At that time, landlord (N. K. Vyas) was posted at Bilaspur. His family continued to reside with Rattan Lai Vyas (PW-3), her father-in-law till the property was purchased by her husband (landlord). There is also no dispute that said Rattan Lai died on 3-6-1992 during the pendency of the instant revision petitions leaving behind his wife and other children. At that time, landlord (N. K. Vyas) was posted at Bilaspur. His family continued to reside with Rattan Lai Vyas (PW-3), her father-in-law till the property was purchased by her husband (landlord). There is also no dispute that said Rattan Lai died on 3-6-1992 during the pendency of the instant revision petitions leaving behind his wife and other children. It is not the case of the respondents that during his life time, said Shri Rattan Lai was evicted from the premises in his occupation or that he ever relinquished the tenancy in favour of his son-landlord. Rather, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has- fairly and squarely conceded the continuance of tenancy of said Shri Rattan Lai (since deceased). In this view of the matter, both father and the son, namely, S/Sh. Rattan Lai and N. K. Vyas had separate but independent identifiable status of that of tenant and landlord, respectively. Even, according to sub-section (1) of section 14, a tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise, whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. In case the tenant relinquishes the tenancy, and handover the possession in favour of the landlord, this fact has to be proved as any other fact. In the instant case, tenant(s)-petitioner(s) have neither pleaded nor proved these facts. Thus, tenancy in favour of late Sh Rattan Lai with respect to the premises constituting first floor of the building owned by Sh. N. K. Vyas, the landlord, continued during his life time till 3-6-1992. 15. In order to judge as to whether respondent-landlord concealed certain material facts with respect to the accommodation in his possession on the date of filing the instant eviction applications or whether he had vacated another residential building owned by him in the urban area, namely, Shimla within five years of the filing of the application, the narration of certain material facts, as tabulated below, are absolutely essential : S. No. Case No. Name of the case Date of filing the petition Date of dismissal of the petition. Decided by. L 43/2 of 1983 N. K. Vyas V. Mehar Chand 6-8-1983 30-8-1984 Rent Controller (HI), Shimla. 2. Decided by. L 43/2 of 1983 N. K. Vyas V. Mehar Chand 6-8-1983 30-8-1984 Rent Controller (HI), Shimla. 2. 62/2 of 1983 N. K. Vyas V. Sat Pal -do- 29-11-1985 Rent Controller, Shimla. 16. The ground of eviction is that Shri Rattan Lai Vyas, the father of the petitioner, who has a large family consisting of himself, wife, three sons and two married daughters as also their families besides the family of the respondent-landlord, is a tenant in the first floor, since prior to the purchase of a portion of the main unit by the petitioner in the year 1976. Further, the family of late Sh. Rattan Lal Vyas was a joint Hindu family including the respondent-landlord of which he (Rattan Lai Vyas) was the karta. In other words, respondent-landlord alongwith his family was holding duel capacity on the date of filing of the instant eviction petitions, first that of being owner of the building purchased by him and second that of being member of joint Hindu family headed by his father, Shri Rattan Lai Vyas, as karta thereof and in the latter capacity, he was residing in the premises in occupation of his father, that is to say, respondent-landlord had no independent accommodation of his own on the date of filing of the eviction petitions. 17. Learned Counsel for the tenant(s)-petitioner(s) submitted that during the pendency of the Us before this Court, a C.M.P. No. 252 of 1992 under Order 7, Rule 7, C. P. C. has been filed stating that after the death of late Sh. Rattan Lal-tenant, his entire accommodation has devolved upon the respondent-landlord who was residing with him during his lifetime. As such, respondent-landlord now possesses sufficient accommodation for himself and his family and, therefore, the eviction petitions are liable to be dismissed. 18. This submission has no substantial force inasmuch as the tenancy, according to the Act, as amended up-to-date devolved upon the wife of late Sh. Rattan Lal (mother of respondent-landlord) and none else. This is abundantly clear from the definition of tenant as per section 2 (j) of the Act read with Schedule I appended thereto. She (mother of respondent-landlord) continues to be the tenant on the same terms and conditions as that of her husband (Rattan Lai Vyas). Rattan Lal (mother of respondent-landlord) and none else. This is abundantly clear from the definition of tenant as per section 2 (j) of the Act read with Schedule I appended thereto. She (mother of respondent-landlord) continues to be the tenant on the same terms and conditions as that of her husband (Rattan Lai Vyas). Section 2 (j) defines "tenant" as under: "(j) "tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building or rented land and includes a tenant continuing in possession after termination of the tenancy and in the event of the death of such person such of his heirs as are mentioned in Schedule I to this Act and who were ordinarily residing with him at the time of his death, subject to the order of succession and conditions specified, respectively in Explanation-I and Explanation-II to this clause, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building or rented land by its tenant, except with the written consent of the landlord, or a person to whom the collection of rent of fees in. a public market, cart-stand or slaughter house or of rents for shops has been farmed out or leased by a municipal corporation or a municipal committee or a Notified Area Committee or a cantonment board ; Explanation I.—The order of succession in the event of the death of the person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy shall be as follows:— (a) firstly, his surviving spouse ; (b) secondly, his son or daughter, or both, if there is no surviving spouse or if the surviving spouse did not ordinarily live with the deceased person as a member of his family up-to the date of his death ; (c)........................ (d)........................ Explanation II.—The right of every successor, referred to in Explanation I, to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy, shall be personal to him and shall not, on the death of such successor, devolve on any of his heirs." In the light of the above said statutory provisions, it is evident that accommodation in possession of late Sh. Rattan Lai Vyas has been inherited by his wife and not by the respondent-landlord. Thus, this submission, being meritless, is rejected. Application also fails. 19. Rattan Lai Vyas has been inherited by his wife and not by the respondent-landlord. Thus, this submission, being meritless, is rejected. Application also fails. 19. Now adverting to the question whether any accommodation was vacated by the landlord-respondent within 5 years prior to the filing of the petition, the case of the landlord (N. K. Vyas) is that no such accommodation was ever vacated by him as alleged. According to the tenant(s)-petitioner(s), landlord got vacated one room in the ground floor and rented out two rooms in the top floor. In the replication, it has been admitted by the landlord that one room fell vacant but the same is a store. He further claimed that landlord cannot be accommodated with his father and requires three sets in occupation of tenants, which form a compact residential unit in the ground floor. Further, the construction of two rooms and kitchen has been denied. The room, which fell vacant, was of the size of 8-1/2 X 6. 20. Adverting to the pleadings and evidence adduced by the respondents) in this behalf, para 9 of the reply filed by the tenant on 17-11-1983 shows that one room of Jiwa Nand fell vacant in the ground floor of the building two months back i.e. in September, 1983. Admittedly, eviction petitions were filed much prior to the said date. Thus, obviously as per pleadings of the tenant-petitioner, this accommodation fell vacant during the pendency of the petition. As regards the evidence, PW 1 in his cross-examination has admitted that this one room of Jiwa Nand fell vacant in the year 1983 which is being used as store. PW 2, in her cross-examination, has shown ignorance about the Jiwa Nand to be one of the tenants. However, suggestion is that he had vacated the premises four months earlier. Her statement was recorded on 6-4-1984. Thus, this suggestion also corroborates the factum of one room having been vacated during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller. The above said fact is further cemented by the statement of Kasturi Lai (since deceased), recorded on 25-7-1984 as RW 1, that Jiwa Nand vacated the premises about one or 1-1/2 years ago. He further stated that one Shri Virender, another tenant of the respondent-landlord vacated the premises in March, 1984. The above said fact is further cemented by the statement of Kasturi Lai (since deceased), recorded on 25-7-1984 as RW 1, that Jiwa Nand vacated the premises about one or 1-1/2 years ago. He further stated that one Shri Virender, another tenant of the respondent-landlord vacated the premises in March, 1984. However, in his cross-examination, he shows his Ignorance as to whether the possession thereof was or was not handed over to the landlord-respondent. He admits that the room earlier in occupation of Jiwa Nand could accommodate only one "charpai" (cot) and it could not accommodate the second cot. Its size was a little bigger than one cot. He admits that after he vacated the same, it was being used as a store by the landlord-respondent. Mehar Chand, tenant-petitioner, appearing as RW 2, also stated that S/Sh. Virender and Jiwa Nand had vacated accommodation under their occupation in March, 1984 and 1983 respectively. In cross-examination, he also makes a similar statement as that of Kasturi Lai, RW, with respect to the size of the room so vacated by Jiwa Nand. Another argument has been advanced that petitioner-landlord has inducted one Negi as a tenant within 5 years prior to the filing of the petition in question. This fact has not been substantiated by any cogent evidence on record irrespective of the admission of landlord that he had inducted him after the purchase of the house in 1976, because he (Negi) looks after the domestic difficulties, he being also a class IV employee in H.P.S.E.B., in which Department respondent-landlord is also employed. From the above statements, it is obvious that the accommodation vacated by Jiwa Nand was of little value for occupying the same. It has also not been proved as to when actually Shri Negi was inducted as such. Onus was upon petitioner^) to show that eviction petition was deficient qua letting out allegations-that a portion of the property had been let out by the petitioner-landlord. So far as the vacation of the set by Virender is concerned, it is belied by the spot inspection report of the learned District Judge, who visited the premises in dispute on 19-4-1986. This report reveals that the said accommodation continues to be in possession of said Virender. So far as the vacation of the set by Virender is concerned, it is belied by the spot inspection report of the learned District Judge, who visited the premises in dispute on 19-4-1986. This report reveals that the said accommodation continues to be in possession of said Virender. It is to be noted that spot was inspected with the consent of the parties and no objections have been filed At this stage, it would be pertinent to detail the spot inspection report in verbatim: "Spot Inspection Report 19-4-1986 ; Present : Shri M. V. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant with appellant Shri N. K. Vyas in person. Shri N. S. Thakur, Advocate for the respondents with respondents Mehar Chand, Kasturi Lai and Sat Pal in person. At present we are in the premises occupied by Shri Rattan Lai Vyas, the father of the appellant which have been purchased by N. K. Vyas and is being occupied by father of the appellant as tenants since 1944. It consists of one Puja room in which there is enough space for one man to sleep. The father of the appellant sleeps there. Only bed can be occupied with ease. Another room adjoining to it is converted into drawing room and is also being used as bath room. There is central room which is occupied by mother of the appellant, niece and "Bhabi" whose husband has been transferred to Kandaghat. Third room is occupied by younger son of Rattan Lai Vyas and brother of appellant N. K. Vyas and is occupied by Ram Kumar. There is also one attached bath room. The kitchen is also attached. The family of the appellant is residing in drawing room and a small drawing room in which hardly six chairs can be placed. In fact, there are only three good rooms. I could not visit the premises of Tulsi Ram because death has happened. The son of Tulsi/Telu Ram told that the size of the room is 10xl2. There is small store which is of not big size. Now I am in the premises of Mehar Chand, tenant. He is having only one room of the sizeJ2 14\ It is occupied with three cots. There is one small kitchen which appears that it has been made from Verandah. Binder Kumars premises consist of one room and one kitchen. It is not a good room. Now I am in the premises of Mehar Chand, tenant. He is having only one room of the sizeJ2 14\ It is occupied with three cots. There is one small kitchen which appears that it has been made from Verandah. Binder Kumars premises consist of one room and one kitchen. It is not a good room. This room is not the subject-matter of the present litigation. Another room has been found locked within the possession of Shri Pritam Singh. I have also visited the tenanted premises of Sat Pal and it can hardly called a room for living. There is a kitchen in it. Five members of the family, as has been stated by Sat Pal, are living in it. But I have seen four members i.e. husband and wife and two children, who are studying. He is running Halwai shop. They are living a vegetable life more or less. I have also seen dingy store adjoining to the premises of Sat Pal and only worth for storing coal. I also visited the premises of Kasturi Lai. There is only one small room for sleeping and hardly it can place three beds of small size, alongwith it, there is also small room which is being used for kitchen purposes. If the light is put off there is no ray of light and is unfit for human habitation to my views and without light, it is injurious to human living. Sd/- District Judge, Shimla," 21. The cumulative effect of the pleadings and the proof adduced by the parties ; thus, indicate that the landlord (Sh. N. K. Vyas) had not suppressed any material fact with respect to the accommodation in his possession, particularly in the eviction petitions. Rather, the details given in the eviction petitions with respect to this fact in paras 18 and 19, has correctly been stated by him. The learned Appellate Authority has correctly appreciated the evidence, though on different reasons. 22. Shri G. C. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) has strenuously argued that the learned Appellate Authority has committed a grave error in having reversed the finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller by mis-reading and mis-appreciating the evidence. I have carefully gone through the entire record. 22. Shri G. C. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) has strenuously argued that the learned Appellate Authority has committed a grave error in having reversed the finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller by mis-reading and mis-appreciating the evidence. I have carefully gone through the entire record. The Appellate Authority has considered the entire evidence coupled with his inspection note and he has merely drawn inferences from the cumulative effect of the oral as also documentary evidence adduced by the parties. From the facts, enumerated above, it cannot be said that the inferences drawn by the learned Appellate Authority are wholly unsustainable. No accommodation, worth the name, was vacated or rented out by the landlord-petitioner, prior to the filing of the eviction petitions. Thus, this submission being without merit, is rejected. 23. Now adverting to the question whether the need of the landlord is genuine and bonafide. We find Ex. PA which is the plan of the building belonging to landlord-Shri N. K. Vyas. It shows that the accommodation in the occupation of aforesaid three tenants, namely, Kasturi Lai, Mehar Chand and Sat Pal is in the ground floor and constitute one compact unit. I have already held that the petitioner had no accommodation in his individual capacity. Rather, he alongwith his family was also being accommodated by his father, as member of the joint Hindu Family alongwith his other children. He was one of the tenants since the year 1945-46 onwards. Admittedly, the landlord (Shri N. K. Vyas) was posted at the material time at Bilaspur and his family was continuing to live with her father-in-law. The relationship in between the parties was such that they could not openly fight with each other and habits of children of the landlord and that of his father Shri Rattan Lai Vyas being opposed, the cropping up of strained relations cannot be ruled out for getting the accommodation vacated from the tenant-petitioner(s) nor the intention to get it vacated can be labelled with ulterior motive. Admittedly, landlord (Shri N. K. Vyas) does not own any other accommodation in the urban area of Shimla This Court can now take judicial notice of the subsequent events. His two children, who were school going in the year 1983, must have now become of a marriageable age. His wife is in service. Admittedly, landlord (Shri N. K. Vyas) does not own any other accommodation in the urban area of Shimla This Court can now take judicial notice of the subsequent events. His two children, who were school going in the year 1983, must have now become of a marriageable age. His wife is in service. His father Shri Rattan Lai Vyas, has expired recently and his tenancy has been inherited by the landlords mother in her individual capacity, as per the statutory provision. Neither the landlord-petitioner nor his brothers or sisters can be said to have inherited the tenancy. Learned Appellate Authority has rightly considered the prevailing circumstances that children of the landlord (N. K. Vyas) were earlier studying in Public School, his wife is trained graduate and is also employed. The landlord has now been posted at Shimla and judicial notice of this fact can be taken note of by this Court. Also, inspection report shows that Jate Shri Rattan Lal, father of the appellant was in possession of one Puja room in which there is enough space for one man to sleep, another dining room has been converted into drawing room. The central room is occupied by the mother of the appellant, niece and ‘bhadi’, whose husband had been transferred to Kandaghat and the third room is occupied by the younger brother of the landlord. Position of attached bath room has also been shown therein. Fuither, judicial notice of the fact that the landlord Shri N. K. Vyas is an Executive Engineer and he holds sufficiently better status in society and according to his entitlement, he is entitled to Type V accommodation as per the Government rules can be taken. Further, the learned Appellate Authority has rightly considered that the premises vacated by Kasturi Lai, is a small room, which can hardly accommodate three beds and it is injurious to reside in that room, as there is no ray of light therein and in the present state of affairs, it is unfit for human habitation. So far as the visits of the brothers and sisters of the landlord in the premises in occupation of late Shri Rattan Lai and now in possession of his wife, the mother of the appellant, is concerned, it cannot be socially restricted. So far as the visits of the brothers and sisters of the landlord in the premises in occupation of late Shri Rattan Lai and now in possession of his wife, the mother of the appellant, is concerned, it cannot be socially restricted. The religious and socio-religious customs of the community to which the landlord belongs has to be taken into consideration, considering the concept of family, vis-a-vis his mother, now holding the accommodation of late Shri Rattan Lai Vyas as a tenant. She cannot boycott her family contacts with her children merely for the reasons that her eldest son is employed at Kandaghat and he resides there with his family or that youngest child is not to be accommodated by the mother alongwith her. The mere fact that late Shri Rattan Lai had cast his vote at Palampur, does not mean that he had relinquished his tenancy in the premises in his occupation. Further fact that he had no ration card at Shimla, is also not relevant for considering the need and genuineness of the landlord. As per the deposition of the landlord as PW-1, he is visited by persons of his status and he is now to accommodate not only himself, his wife and children in a separate accommodation, but also other members of the joint Hindu family. From whatsoever angle the evidence may be viewed, it does reveal the genuine and bonafide need of the landlord. The last but not least submission made by the learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner is that the respondent-landlord has no reasonable justification for choosing the disputed premises for the purpose of his residence. Instead, he could have got it vacated from other tenants This contention is by itself fallacious. It is the choice of the landlord to choose the suitable accommodation. He has already pleaded and proved on record that the accommodation in possession of the three tenants-petitioners, namely, Kasturi Lai, Mehar Chand and Sat Pal form a compact unit and is a suitable accommodation for his and his familys residence. 24. The instant eviction petitions were filed in the year 1983 and it has come up for decision after 10 years, during which period the need of the landlord has increased because his children are now college going students and each of the two need separate accommodation than their parents. 25. 24. The instant eviction petitions were filed in the year 1983 and it has come up for decision after 10 years, during which period the need of the landlord has increased because his children are now college going students and each of the two need separate accommodation than their parents. 25. In view of the above said circumstances, interference in the impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Authority directing the eviction of the tenant-petitioners, is not called for. For the reasons aforesaid, both revision petitions are dismissed with costs, assessed in lump sum at Rs. 550 each. Let a copy of this order be kept in the connected file. 26. I, However, direct that the order for eviction of the tenant(s)-petitioner(s) from the premises in their respective occupation, shall not be executed till February 28, 1994, provided the tenant(s)-petitioner(s) give an undertaking separately to the learned Rent Controller within one month from the date that he will vacate and deliver vacant possession of the disputed premises on or before 28th February, 1994 and regularly keep m paying the landlord-respondent monthly damages calculated at the rate of rent for use and occupation in the meanwhile. Order accordingly.