Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 271 (PNJ)

M. S. Rahi v. Bhoop Singh

2005-02-17

HEMANT GUPTA

body2005
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the Court below whereby the order of ejectment has been passed on the ground that the premises in dispute i.e. 1st floor of House No. 2040, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh in occupation of the petitioner is required for bona fide use and occupation of the respondent. 2. The respondent has purchased the said house in February 2001 in which the present petitioner was tenant on the first floor of the house consisting of bed rooms, kitchen, a small room, lobby, Bathroom, Balcony adjacent to lobby a room over the garage. 3. The landlord sought ejectment of the petitioner herein on the ground that he requires the premises for him and members of his family for bona fide use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller allowed the judgment and the same has been affirmed in appeal. 4. It has been found that the landlord is a practicing Advocate in Punjab and Haryana High Court and one of his sons is practicing Advocate though unmarried. It has been further found that the landlord requires the premises also for visiting married daughter and son who is residing Abroad as well as for mother who is residing with landlord. 5. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the landlord has given false affidavit inasmuch as the appropriate sale consideration has not been shown and the mother is not living with the landlord. Still further, it is argued that the statement of Harsimran Singh who has appeared as RW2 has not been taken into consideration at all. In fact, the landlord was residing on the first floor of the house in Sector 16 for 29 years and, therefore, he is not entitled to seek ejectment forthwith and the landlord should have acceded to the request of the petitioner to grant him time to vacate the premises on January 2006. It is also argued that the landlord has sufficient accommodation and, therefore, he does not require the additional accommodation of the first floor of the premises in dispute. 6. I am unable to agree with the argument raised by the petitioner. Whether the sale consideration is inadequate as reflected in the sale deed or not, is not the issue which can be gone into in the present proceedings. 6. I am unable to agree with the argument raised by the petitioner. Whether the sale consideration is inadequate as reflected in the sale deed or not, is not the issue which can be gone into in the present proceedings. The fact remains that the respondent is a landlord and petitioner has atoned as tenant in his favour. The argument that the mother is not living with the landlord is again not really very material for determination of the controversy between the parties. The admitted fact that the landlord is a practising Advocate. He has got son who is also a practising advocate. Apart from the unmarried son of landlord, some accommodation is also required for visiting members of his family. The landlord has right to be comfortable in his house and he cannot be compelled to share accommodation with the tenant. It has been held by Hon ble Supreme Court in Siddalingamma v. Mamtha Shenoy, 2001(2) Rent Control Reporter 539 that if the landlord wishes to live with comfort in a house of his own, the law does not command or compel him to squeeze himself and dwell into lesser premises as to protect the tenants continued occupation in tenancy premises. It has been held that the question to be asked by a judge of facts, by placing himself in the place of the landlord, is, whether in the given facts proved by material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest? If the answer be in the positive the need is bonafide. 7. The argument that the landlord has stayed in the similar premises for 29 years is again without any merit. A person has a right to improve his status and living conditions in his life. Mere fact that he continued to stay for long time in smaller accommodation will not deprive the landlord to be comfortable in the property purchased by him. 8. The argument that the statement of Harsimran Singh PW2 has not been considered is again without any merit. It is correct that the Rent Controller has not discussed the statement of said witness nor the Appellate Authority has adverted to testimony of the said witness. With the assistance of the petitioner, I have gone through the statement of the said witness. It is correct that the Rent Controller has not discussed the statement of said witness nor the Appellate Authority has adverted to testimony of the said witness. With the assistance of the petitioner, I have gone through the statement of the said witness. The said statement has no material effect on any questions which are raised in the present petition and, thus, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner only for the reason that the said statement has not been referred to by the Courts below. I do not find any material irregularity or illegality in the order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.