Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 132 (HP)

MANISH AGGARWAL v. MOHINDER SINGH

2003-05-30

K.C.SOOD

body2003
JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand.Sood, J.—This petition under Section 16(8) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. "Rent Act" for short, arises out of the order of the learned Rent Controller (1) District Sirmaur at Nahan dated June 1, 2002. 2. To appreciate the controversy, necessary facts may be noticed : Respondent Mohinder Singh is the owner/landlord of the building known as "Aman Cottage" situate at Mall in the town of Nahan. Out of three floors, first floor was rented to petitioner Manish Aggarwal, hereinafter referred to as "the tenant" on a monthly rental of rupees 2,800. Manish Aggarwal was inducted as tenant on June 1, 1998. The landlord was employed as Deputy Chief Engineer Electrical in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board at the relevant time and retired on July 31, 2001 after attaining the age of superannuation. On his retirement, he alongwith his family members shifted from Shimla, where he was posted at the time of his retirement, to Nahan and started living in the remaining portion of the "demised premises". 3. The landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant under Section 15(2) of the Rent Act on the grounds that he was a specified landlord, under the Rent Act, and the accommodation, in his possession, was not sufficient according to his status and the requirement of his family. The petitioner has a married son having a child, a married daughter. He had engaged a servant, which is necessary in view of his status, and there is no room to adjust such servant. The landlord, it was pleaded, is unable to his guests and relatives who visit him because of the paucity of the accommodation in his occupation. He also filed an affidavit saying that he or his spouse does not own and possess any other building or suitable accommodation in the local area of Nahan. He intends and wants to reside at Nahan after his retirement. 4. The respondent sought permission of the Rent Controller to contest the petition filed by the landlord. He filed an affidavit denying that the petitioner was specified landlord. He also took objection that the affidavit filed by the landlord was not in accordance with the requirement of Section 15(2) of the Rent Act. According to the tenant, "lot of accommodation" is in possession of the landlord. He filed an affidavit denying that the petitioner was specified landlord. He also took objection that the affidavit filed by the landlord was not in accordance with the requirement of Section 15(2) of the Rent Act. According to the tenant, "lot of accommodation" is in possession of the landlord. The landlord in fact shifted to Nahan immediately before his retirement and started residing in the upper portion of the building alongwith his children which accommodation is sufficient for the requirement of the landlord and his family members. Had the requirement of the landlord been genuine, pleads the tenant, he would not have inducted him as tenant on June 1, 1998, i.e. about two years prior to his retirement. It was his case that the daughter of the landlord is married and settled in United Kingdom. His son is also married and, therefore, not dependent on the landlord. It is pleaded that there are three bedrooms in occupation of the landlord. One of the bed room can be used by the landlord and his wife, the .second bed room can be used by his married son, daughter-in-law and the child and the third bed room could be put to use for the guests, other members of the family and relations of the landlord who visit him. It is maintained that there is a separate room to house the servant. In addition, according to the tenant, landlord is also in occupation of a big dining hall, drawing room and a lobby for his and his family members use. It is on these grounds that leave to contest was prayed. 5. The landlord filed an affidavit denying the averments made by the tenant and reiterated the pleas raised in the petition. 6. Learned Rent Controller held that landlord was a specified landlord within the meaning of Section 15(2) of the Act though by ministerial mistake, the tenant was issued ordinary summons and not summons as contemplated under Schedule-II of Section 16 of the Rent Act. The mistake was inadvertent and the tenant when appeared on January 21, 2001 sought time to file application to contest the petition, which was allowed. The application for leave to contest the petition alongwith an affidavit was filed before the Rent Controller on March 4, 2002. In the circumstances, concluded learned Rent Controller, no prejudice has been caused to the tenant. 7. The application for leave to contest the petition alongwith an affidavit was filed before the Rent Controller on March 4, 2002. In the circumstances, concluded learned Rent Controller, no prejudice has been caused to the tenant. 7. So far bona fide requirement of the landlord regarding his requirement of the portion of the building in occupation of the tenant is concerned learned Rent Controller held that it was not for the tenant to dictate as to how landlord could adjust himself without getting the premises in question vacated. The requirement of the landlord was bona fide as he has one married daughter one married son with a child and he being a retired Gazetted Officer, do require a family servant for which a separate room for his stay is necessary. The landlord also required one bedroom for his guests and relatives when they visit him. The requirement, in view of the facts disclosed, in the affidavit of the landlord, cannot be said to be fanciful or unjustified. 8. Learned Rent Controller rejected the application of the tenant for leave to contest and allowed the petition directing the tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord immediately. 9. Aggrieved, the tenant has Lald this petition. 10. I have heard Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Ms. Jyotika, Advocate for the tenant petitioner and Mr. Sandip Kaushik Advocate for the respondent landlord. I have also perused the record. 11. Section 15 of the Rent Act provides a right to recover immediate possession of tenanted premises to certain landlords. 10. I have heard Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Ms. Jyotika, Advocate for the tenant petitioner and Mr. Sandip Kaushik Advocate for the respondent landlord. I have also perused the record. 11. Section 15 of the Rent Act provides a right to recover immediate possession of tenanted premises to certain landlords. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 provides that where a specified landlord, at any time within one year prior to or within one year after his retirement apply to the Controller alongwith a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the effect that he or his spouse does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside or to start his own business, shall be entitled to recover immediate possession of "one residential building" for his own occupation notwithstanding anything contained in other provisions of the Act or any other law for the time being in force or in any contract whether expressed or implied custom or usage to the contrary, of such residential building or any part or parts of such building if it is let out in part or parts. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 may be reproduced for convenience: "15(2) Where a specified landlord, at any time within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within one year of the appointed day whichever is later, applies to the Controller, alongwith a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the effect that he or his spouse does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside or to start his own business, to recover possession of one residential building for his own occupation, there shall accrue, on and from the date of such application to such specified landlord, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract (whether expressed or implied), custom or usage to the contrary a right to recover immediate possession of such residential building or any part or parts of such building if it is let out in part or parts : Provided that in case of death of the specified landlord, the widow or widower of such specified landlord and in the case of death of such widow or widower, mother or father or a child or a grandchild or a widowed daughter-in-law who was dependent upon such specified landlord at the time of his death shall be entitled to make an application under this section to the Controller :— (a) in the case of death of such specified landlord before the appointed day, within one year of Ihe said day; (b) in the case of death of such specified landlord after the appointed day, but before the date of his retirement, within one year of the date of his death; (c) in the case of death of such specified landlord after the appointed day and the date of his retirement, within one year of the date of such retirement; and on the date of such application the right to recover the possession of the residential building which belongs to such specified landlord or his spouse at the time of his death shall accrue to the applicant: Provided further that nothing in this section shall be so contrued as conferring a right, on any person to recover possession of more than one residential building inclusive of any part or parts thereof if it is let out in part or parts : Provided further that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the specified landlord or, as the case may be, the widow, widower, child, grand-child or widowed daughter-in-law in possession of the residential building and may extend such time not exceeding three months in the aggregate. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, the expression "retirement" includes the voluntary retirement but does not include resignation, discharge or dismissal from service." (Emphasis given) 12. Section 16 of the "Rent Act" provides for a special procedure for the disposal of the application for eviction on the ground of bona fides requirement under Sections 15 and 14(3) (a)(iii) of the Act. It provides that every application by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises under Section 15 has to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in the Section. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 contemplates that after an application has been filed, the Controller shall issue summons of every such application in the form specified in Schedule-II. Sub-section (4) of Section 16 stipulates that the tenant on whom the summons are duly served shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for his eviction and obtains leave from the Controller. In default of his appearance pursuant to the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the specified landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the landlord shall be entitled to an order of eviction on that ground. Sub-section (5) of Section 16 provides that the Controller shall give to tenant leave to contest the application only if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such fact as would disentitle the landlord or the specified landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground contemplated under Section 15 of the Act. Subsection (8) provides that no appeal or second appeal shall be maintained against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 16. However, the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this Section is according to law call for the records of the case and pass such orders in respect thereto as it thinks fit For convenience, Section 16 may be reproduced: "16 (1). However, the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this Section is according to law call for the records of the case and pass such orders in respect thereto as it thinks fit For convenience, Section 16 may be reproduced: "16 (1). Every application by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises under sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 14 or Section 15 shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this section. (2) After an application under sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of subsection (3) of Section 14 or Section 15 is received, the Controller shall issue summons, in relation to every application referred to in subsection (1), in the form specified in Schedule-II. (3) (a) The Controller shall in addition to and simultaneously with the issue of summons for service on the tenant also direct the summons to be served by registered post acknowledgement due, addressed to the tenant or his agent empowered to accept the service at the place where the tenant or his agent actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and may, if the circumstances of the case so require also direct the publication of the summons in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the tenant is last known to have resided 01 carried on business or personally worked for gain. (b) When an acknowledgement purporting to be signed by the tenant or his agent is received by the Controller or the registered article containing the summons is received back with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the tenant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the registered article the Controller, after such inquiry as he deems fit is satisfied about the correctness of the endorsement he may declare that there has been a valid service of summons on the tenant. (4) The tenant on whom the summons is duly served (whether in the ordinary way or by* registered post) in the form specified in Schedule-II shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises in Schedule-II shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord or by the specified landlord, or as the case may be, the widow, widower, child, grand-child or widowed daughter-in-law of such specified landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid. (5) The Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such fact as would disentitle the landlord or the specified landlord or, as the case may be, the widow, widower, child, grand-child or widowed daughter-in-law of such specified landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 14 or in Section 15. (6) Where leave is granted to the tenant to contest the application, the Controller shall commence the hearing of the application as early as practicable. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14, the Controller shall, while holding an enquiry in a proceeding, follow the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes, including the recording of evidence. (8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section: Provided that the High Court may, for the purposes of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such orders in respect thereto as it thinks fit. (9) Where no application for revision has been made to the High Court, the Controller may exercise the powers of review in accordance with the provisions of Order XLVII of the First Schedule in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (10) Save as otherwise provided in this section, the procedure for the disposal of an application for eviction on the ground specified in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 14 or in Section 15 shall be the same as the procedure for the disposal of applications by the Controller". (Emphasis given) 13. The first contention of learned Senior Counsel for the tenant is that the affidavit filed by the landlord under Section 15(2) is not in conformity with the provision of Section 15(2) of the Rent Act. 14. A bare perusal of Section 15(2) shows that specified landlord while applying for eviction of the tenant must file an affidavit to the effect that he or his spouse does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside. Having gone through the affidavit filed by the landlord, it cannot be said that the same is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Rent Act. Affidavit filed by the landlord may be reproduced: "I, Mohinder Singh son of late Shri Boor Singh, aged 58 years, resident of the Mall Nahan, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:— 1. That I am the owner of the building known as Aman Cottage The Mall Nahan and am entitled to receive rent of the premises tenanted to respondent on my own account. I retired as Deputy Chief Engineer (Electrical) from H.P.S.E.B. Vidyut Bhawan-Shimla on 31.7.2001, as such I am specified landlord. 2. That I attained the age of my superannuation on 31.7.2001 (A.N.). My order of superannuation passed by Employer bears No. 201/ HPSEB-Sectt/2001, dated 3.7.2001. I relinquished my charge from the above post being public servant on 31.7.2001, vide certificate of relinquishment of charge dated 31.7.2001. Both documents are attached with the main petition. 3. That myself or my spouse does not own and possess any other building or suitable accommodation in the local area of Nahan as I want to reside at Nahan after my retirement. (Emphasis given) Sd/- deponent. Both documents are attached with the main petition. 3. That myself or my spouse does not own and possess any other building or suitable accommodation in the local area of Nahan as I want to reside at Nahan after my retirement. (Emphasis given) Sd/- deponent. Verification :— I the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of this affidavit are true to my personal knowledge and belief no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there from. Verified at Nahan on 14.1.2002. Sd/- deponent” 15. A perusal of the above affidavit shows that it is entirely in conformity with the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Rent Act. The affidavit specifically says that: (a) landlord is the owner of the building concerned; (b) he retired as Deputy Chief Engineer (Electrical) from H.P.S.E.B. Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla on 31.7.2001 and, therefore, was a specified landlord; (certificate attached) (c) on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2001, he stood retired and he relinquished his charge from that post on 31.7.2001. A certificate to that effect is attached with the petition. (d) he or his spouse does not own and possess any other building or suitable accommodation at Nahan. 16. In the affidavit, he specifically says that he or his spouse does not own and possess any other building or suitable accommodation in the local area of Nahan and that he intends to reside at Nahan after his retirement. 17. The contention of learned Senior Counsel is that the expression "suitable accommodation" is superfluous. The argument is misplaced. The expression used is requirement of the standing provisions noticed above. However, the fact remains that when the petition was filed, the landlord was in possession of upper portion of the premises in occupation of the tenant, which accommodation according to the landlord, is insufficient for his bona fides requirement and therefore not "suitable". Sub-section (2) of Section 15, it may be noticed, includes any part or parts of the residential building if such a building is let out in part or parts. The argument perhaps is that the landlord was in occupation of upper portion of the tenanted premises, therefore, he was in possession of part of the building and therefore, not entitled to recover the possession of the tenanted premises as the landlord is entitled to possession of one residential building for his own occupation. 18. The argument perhaps is that the landlord was in occupation of upper portion of the tenanted premises, therefore, he was in possession of part of the building and therefore, not entitled to recover the possession of the tenanted premises as the landlord is entitled to possession of one residential building for his own occupation. 18. I see no merit in the contention raised by the learned Counsel. In my view, the provision does not permit the landlord to recover possession of "more than one residential building" for his own occupation if he is not in occupation of "any other suitable accommodation in the local area" concerned in which he intends to reside. However, in case the residential accommodation is let out in part or parts, the landlord will have a right to recover the possession of the building itself inclusive of any part or parts. I draw support, for the view I have taken from Zenobia Bhanot v. RK. Vasudeva and another, (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 770. In that case, provision of Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which is similar to sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Rent Act came to be interpreted by the Apex Court. It was held that the right to recover the residential building for his own occupation by a specified landlord, if he does not own or possess any suitable accommodation, is at the option of the landlord either to recover immediately the possession of whole building or to recover in part or parts thereof. In cases where the building is let out in part or parts, the parts so let out will form part of the building itself. All that what is provided is that the landlord shall not be entitled to recover the possession of more than one residential or schedule building inclusive of any part or parts thereof. Their Lordships held that there was nothing in Section 13-A of the Act to import the idea that if a residential building is let out in parts, each part will become a residential building thereby "fettering" the "specified landlord" to avail the concession only from one part. In para 10 of the judgment, Their Lordships observed : "10. The title to Section 13-A states that the right is given to a "specified landlord" to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building. In para 10 of the judgment, Their Lordships observed : "10. The title to Section 13-A states that the right is given to a "specified landlord" to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building. The Statement of Objects and Reasons also states that the summary procedure for eviction of tenants from the residential and scheduled buildings is provided in Section 13-A. The crucial words in Section 13-A clearly point out that, where a specified landlord, at any time within one year applies to the Rent Controller to recover possession of his residential building for his own occupation there shall accrue, on and from the date of such application to such specified landlord, a right to recover immediately the possession of such residential building or any part or parts of such building, if it is let out in part or parts. The provisions of the statute are clear. The right is given to a "specified landlord" to recover immediate possession of the residential building. He should have retired from the service and should file an affidavit that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation to reside. In such a case, he can require possession of his residential or scheduled building for his own occupation. The right is given to the landlord notwithstanding any other provision in the Act or any other law or any contract to the contrary, to recover immediately the possession of such residential building. If such residential building is let out in parts, the landlord is given the option to recover immediately the possession of such residential building itself or any part or parts of such building, in cases where it is let out in part or parts. In cases where the building is let out in parts, the parts so let out, will form part of the building itself. All that the second proviso provides is that the said right shall not enable the landlord to recover possession of more than one residential or scheduled building inclusive of any part or parts thereof, if the building is let out in part or parts. There are no words in Section 13-A of the Act to import the idea that if a residential building is let out in parts, each part will become a residential building thereby fettering the "specified landlord" to avail the concession only from a part. There are no words in Section 13-A of the Act to import the idea that if a residential building is let out in parts, each part will become a residential building thereby fettering the "specified landlord" to avail the concession only from a part. Section 13-A, which gives a special right to the landlord, is to enable him to exercise the right to recover the residential building for his own occupation, if he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation. In interpreting the section it is a far-cry to state, that the question as to whether the accommodation with the landlord after taking possession from one of the tenants is sufficient for his personal requirement or not, is not to be gone into in such proceedings. The right is given to the landlord, in case where he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation to recover possession of his residential building. If the building is let out in parts, any oral such parts can also be recovered, since the part or parts let out, form part of the building. Section 13-A clearly points out that the landlord has an option to get the recovery (the immediate possession) of the residential building or any part or parts of such building, in a case where the building is let out in parts. The option so given to the landlord by the concluding words in the opening of clause of Section 13-A, in cases where the building is let out in part or parts, either to recover the whole building or to recover in part or parts thereof is reinforced by the second proviso. By no stretch of reasoning, the second proviso to Section 13-A can be construed as nullifying the main provision of Section 13-Aand, in particular, the concluding words in the opening clause of Section 13-A whereby the option is given to the landlord to recover the possession of residential building itself or any part or parts thereof in cases whereof building is let out in part or parts. We hold that the reasoning and conclusion to the contrary in the two reported judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and also in the judgment under appeal dated 20.7.1992 are clearly erroneous and unjustified. We hold that the reasoning and conclusion to the contrary in the two reported judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and also in the judgment under appeal dated 20.7.1992 are clearly erroneous and unjustified. On the other hand, the reasoning contained in the order of reference dated 26.11.1990, appeals to us, as reasonable and fair and the same is in accord with the legislative intent and the language of Section 13-A of the Act. We set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 20.7.1992 appealed against herein and allow the appeals." (Emphasis given) 19. Thus, if the landlord or his spouse does not own or possess any suitable accommodation in the local area concerned, then such landlord is entitled to one residential building including part or parts thereof if it is rented out in part or parts. 20. The next contention of learned Senior Counsel is that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. 21. It is to be noticed that under sub-section (5) of Section 16, a tenant is entitled to leave to contest the application of the specified landlord if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such fact as would dis-entitle the specified landlord from obtaining an order for immediate recovery of the premises in question for his own occupation. Thus, when leave to defend is sought, the tenant is only to make out a prima facie case raising such pleas that a triable issue emerge. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh, (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 706, it is enough if the tenant makes out a prima facie case by disclosing such fact as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction. The approach has to be cautious and judicious in granting or refusing the leave to defend to a tenant to contest an eviction petition. It is not the requirement of law that the tenant has, at that stage, establish a strong case. At the same time, cautioned the Supreme Court, a leave to defend cannot and should not be granted for mere asking or in routine manner, which will defeat the very object of the special provision. Leave to defend would be refused if the requirement of the landlord does not appear to be bona fide. At the same time, cautioned the Supreme Court, a leave to defend cannot and should not be granted for mere asking or in routine manner, which will defeat the very object of the special provision. Leave to defend would be refused if the requirement of the landlord does not appear to be bona fide. At that stage, the parties rely on the affidavits in support of the rival contentions, It is enough if the tenant makes out a prima facie case by disclosing such fact as would dis-entitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction. The approach has to be cautious and judicious. The question, which arises for consideration, is whether the requirement of the landlord is bona fide or not. In M/s. Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajendra K. Tandon, 1998 (1) RCR482, the respondent was a Central Government employee last posted at Delhi as Deputy Chief Engineer in Northern Railways. He retired as such on July 23, 1987. He filed an application under Section 14C of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which is pari materia to Section 15(2) of the Rent Act. He indicated has choice for the premises in question comprising a ground floor, first and second floor. The ground floor was in occupation of the appellant while the first and second floors were in occupation of the landlord. The landlord sought eviction of the appellant from the ground floor on the ground that entire premises were required by him, as the accommodation at his disposal on the first and second floors was insufficient. It was pleaded that he required three bed rooms separately for his son, daughter and for himself and his wife, another room for his office where he proposes to carry on consultancy work, after having retired as Deputy Chief Engineer from the Northern Railways. He also requires a room for his guests, specially his three sisters who, though married, quite often visit the landlord. It was pleaded that the respondent was the only nearest relations of his sisters whom they visit on all possible occasions. Therefore, the entire accommodation on the ground floor was required by the landlord as additional accommodation. The respondent in that case owned house in Delhi. He expLalned his need for the particular premises for which he indicated his choice. It was pleaded that the respondent was the only nearest relations of his sisters whom they visit on all possible occasions. Therefore, the entire accommodation on the ground floor was required by the landlord as additional accommodation. The respondent in that case owned house in Delhi. He expLalned his need for the particular premises for which he indicated his choice. In the circumstances, the Apex Court observed : "Apparently, the need appears to be a need falling under Section 14(l)(e), but the fact remains that the need for additional accommodation of one room or the ground floor, which would also include the facility of car-parking, which the respondent, otherwise, had been parking on the road, has arisen on his retirement." The apex Court observed : "We have also examined the facts set out by the appellant in his affidavit filed before the Rent Controller for leave to defend the present proceedings. The pleas, in our opinion, do not disentitle the landlord from recovering possession of the premises in question particularly when the respondent has clearly set out in his petition that although he owned one more house, he wanted this particular premises for his own need. The choice, and sufficient reasons in support thereof having thus been indicated by the respondent, the plea of the appellant about alternative accommodation being available to the landlord cannot be sustained". (Emphasis given) 22. In the present case the landlord clearly states that he shifted from Shimla to Nahan after his retirement and started living in the upper portion of the premises occupied by the tenant. The accommodation in possession of the landlord is not sufficient for him and his family members. The landlord has given detail of his requirement which cannot but be said "Bonafide". He requires one room for himself and his wife. One room for the married son and his wife, one room for his married daughter and one room for the guests. In addition, a room for the servant. The requirement is reasonable and just in view of the status of the landlord who retired as Deputy Chief Engineer. The respondent in his affidavit does not dispute the facts disclosed by the landlord. In addition, a room for the servant. The requirement is reasonable and just in view of the status of the landlord who retired as Deputy Chief Engineer. The respondent in his affidavit does not dispute the facts disclosed by the landlord. What the respondent states is that the accommodation with the landlord is sufficient for his requirement and he merely wants to get rid of the tenant and thereafter to rent the premises to some other person at a higher rent. In the reply-affidavit filed by the landlord, it is stated that the tenant owns and possess four storeyed residential building in the town of Nahan in the name of his father Shri Krishan Lal Aggarwal in Khasra numbers 2061,2062,2063 situate at Bazar Chowk, Nahan which is lying vacant and part of which is occupied only by his father and mother. The spouse of the tenant owns and possesses accommodation in Nahan town at Mall Road. He reiterates that the accommodation in possession of the landlord is insufficient for the requirement of his family members. It is noticed that the landlord has produced a site plan of his building, is mark-A, which is not disputed. The site plan shows that the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of one room, drawing room and dining area with covered verandah on the second floor and one room, store and open terrace on the third floor besides one room 3 mtrs. x 2.5 mtrs. Styled as service room in addition to garage, kitchen, store and two toilets. 23. In Zenobia Bhanot, the Apex Court observed : "Section 13-A, which gives a special right to the landlord, is to enable him to exercise the right to recover, the residential building for his own occupation, if he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation. In interpreting the section, it is a far cry to state, that the question as to whether the accommodation with the landlord after taking possession from one of the tenants is sufficient for his personal requirement or not, is not to be gone into in such proceedings. The right is given to the landlord, in case where he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation to recover possession of his residential building." (Emphasis given) 24. The right is given to the landlord, in case where he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation to recover possession of his residential building." (Emphasis given) 24. In Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company, (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 119, Their Lordships in para 14 of the judgment observed: "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 fides. 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 fides. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fides. It is often said by Courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to 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. (Emphasis given) 25. Thus, once the landlord spells out his requirement and shows a prima facie case the Rent Controller can draw presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fides and it is not or the tenant to say that the landlord can adjust within the accommodation available with him without getting the possession of the premises tenanted with the tenant. It is not open to the tenant to say that the landlord can adjust himself within the available accommodation. 26. In M.L. Prabhakar v. Rajiv Singhal, JT 2001 (1) SC 223, Their Lordships held in para 8 of the judgment that suitability has to be seen from the convenience of the landlord and his family members and on the basis of the totality of the circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habits and background. 27. In the present case, taking into consideration the living standard of the landlord, his background, the requirement of the landlord for the accommodation in occupation of the tenant cannot be said to be lacking bona fides. 28. 27. In the present case, taking into consideration the living standard of the landlord, his background, the requirement of the landlord for the accommodation in occupation of the tenant cannot be said to be lacking bona fides. 28. The Rent Controller in his order taking into consideration the respective affidavits of the landlord and the tenant indicated that the requirement of the landlord for the tenanted premises, in occupation of the tenant, for his personal use and use of his family members, according to his status is "certainly bona fide". The power of the High Court under proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 16 is limited and only supervisory in nature intended to ensure that Rent Controller passes orders in accordance with law and procedure specified in the Section. 29. Apex Court in Sarla Ahuja considering the scope of interference under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which is in pari materia to Section 16(8) of the Rent Act, and observed : "6. The above proviso indicates that the power of the High Court is supervisory in nature and it is intended to ensure that the Rent Controller conforms to law when he passes the order. The satisfaction of the Court when perusing the records of the case must be confined to the limited sphere that the order of the Rent Controller is "according to the law". In other words, the High Court shall scrutinize the records to ascertain whether any illegality has been committed by the Rent Controller in passing the order under Section 25-B. It is not possible for the High Court in that exercise to come to a different fact finding unless the finding arrived at by the Rent Controller on the facts is so unreasonable that no Rent Controller should have reached such a finding on the materials available." 30. In view of the law Laid down by the Supreme Court, it is not open to the High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under proviso to sub-section (8) to Section 16 to come to a different finding of fact unless the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller are so unreasonable that no Rent Controller could have reached such findings on the material placed on record. Such is not the case. The findings of the Rent Controller are based on the affidavits filed by landlord and the tenant. Such is not the case. The findings of the Rent Controller are based on the affidavits filed by landlord and the tenant. By no stretch, it can be said that the conclusion reached by the Rent Controller was on extraneous factors. In the circumstances, this Court would not upset the findings of the Rent Controller under proviso to sub-section (8) to Section 16 of the Rent Act. No other point was urged. There is no merit in this petition. In result, the petition fails and is dismissed. The tenant is granted time upto June 30, 2003 to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession to the landlord. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.