Civial Revision No.271 of 2008 : 1 : ***** Govt.of Punjab & others Vs. Rajinder Parshad Ved Parkash Present: Mr.S.K.Bhanot, Senior DAG, Punjab, for the petitioners-State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Would not it be shameful to notice that the State professing itself to be a welfare State is fighting like an ordinary litigant tenant to contest its ejectment ordered from a shop-cum- office located in Chandigarh on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord. The State, which has such vast and huge resources and palatial building to have its office, is stopping low to contest the personal need and bonafide requirement of a hapless citizen, who wants the tenanted premises to be vacated for his personal necessity. Ideally, the Government should have acceded to his request may be not as a good tenant, but a good Government. Instead, the Government-petitioner forced the landlord to contest his requirement before the Rent Controller where he remained un- successful, requiring him to file an appeal, where ultimately he has now succeeded. Even this was not considered enough for a highly resourceful State and it has impugned this order passed by the Appellate Court directing its ejectment by filing the present revision petition. A few facts relevant for deciding the case are that Rajinder Parshad Ved Parkash is the landlord of the demised premises, i.e., SCO No.2929-30, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh which is Civial Revision No.271 of 2008 : 2 : on a monthly rent with the Rural Development of Government of Punjab on a 'princely` rate of rent of Rs.9655/-. It works out Rs.2.50 per sq. ft. It is averred by the landlord that the petitioner-State did not prove to be a good tenant and had even failed to make payment of the rent regularly as per the terms of the lease deed. When put to notice, the petitioner-State admitted the tenancy, but denied the non- payment of rent, which, according to it was being regularly paid. It is further disclosed in the reply that the petitioner-State was requesting the landlord to re-negotiate the conditions of the original lease deed, but did not receive any response from him. It is then pleaded that the landlord does not require this demised premises for his personal use and occupation and accordingly prayed that his application be rejected. Respondent-landlord appeared as a witness in support of his stand to say that his sons have now grown up and they are also dependent upon business of transport for their livelihood. This business, according to the respondent-landlord, was required to be further expanded and as such there was a need to have the demised premises for own use and occupation. The total area let out to the petitioner-State on first and second floors measures 3850 sq. ft. Respondent-landlord needed this area for his use to expand business for his sons etc. S.D.O., who appeared as a witness on behalf of the State, deposed in his affidavit that landlord was not the owner of this building alone and had commercial building in Chandigarh as well as S.A.S.Nagar Mohali. It is also disclosed that he had recently bought SCO No.2931-32 in the same sector, which, according to this Civial Revision No.271 of 2008 : 3 : affidavit, was lying vacant. He, however, could not answer while under cross-examination if he had knowledge about the business run by the landlord. On the basis of this evidence, the trial court rejected the prayer of the respondent-landlord for ejectment of the Government. It appears that Government seemed too powerful to the Rent Controller to direct its ejectment. The Appellate Court went in detail of the evidence and the arguments addressed before him and has rightly observed that the reasons advanced by the Government to contest ejectment on the ground that the landlord bought some other commercial property in Chandigarh are devoid of merit. As is noticed by the Appellate Court, in the ratio of law laid down in Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar Vs. M/s Traders & Agencies, 1996(2) RCR SC 233, it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner, he should live and the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. It is further observed that if landlord desired to beneficially enjoy his own property when the other property occupied by him as a tenant or on any other basis is either insecure or inconvenient it is not for the Court to dictate him to continue to occupy such premises. Reference is also made to the case of Shiv Swaroop Gupta Vs. Dr.M.C.Gupta, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2507. It is held in this case that judge of facts should place himself in the arm chair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. The Court further observed that if the answer be in the positive, then need is bonafide. It has further been observed that Civial Revision No.271 of 2008 : 4 : requirement of bonafide need by a landlord requires a sympathetic view and consideration by the Rent Courts, which normally and generally leans in favour of the tenants. Thus, the statement made on behalf of the petitioner-State that availability of another commercial accommodation should be taken note of to deny his prayer for ejectment can not be accepted. Such a plea to deny or contest the bonafide need of a landlord by a State is really not appreciable. Can one assume that State or its agency can not have place or space or is having no alternatives to accommodate its officers or offices?. As a Government committed for the welfare of the citizens, it should have voluntarily come forward to vacate the premises when need is by the landlord for his bonafide use. It is more so when law has already provided safeguards for those tenants where the landlord either let out the demised premises again after obtaining ejectment or does not occupy for setting up the office etc. as in such eventuality the tenant has a right to get possession of the demised premises back. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly would dismiss this petition. January 17, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE