IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3957 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 18.8.2010 Vinod Kumar Jain ....Petitioner Versus Om Parkash ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.T.S.Gujral, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the respondent. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. Civil Misc. applications are allowed as prayed for. This is a landlord's petition directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated 3.8.1995 and that of the Appellate Authority dated 8.4.2009. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the present respondent inter-alia pleading that he requires the premises in question for his own use and occupation. He pleaded that he is being forced to occupy a rented accommodation and that he requires the premises for himself, his wife, two children and his unmarried sister who is residing with him. The ground of non-payment of rent was also taken as was also the C.R.No.3957 of 2009 (O&M) -2- plea that the building is 100 years old and was unsafe for human habitation. The respondent denied the averments made in the petition and pleaded that the building is safe for human habitation and that he has already paid the rent. The following issues were framed :- 1. What is the rate of rent?OPParties 2. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the tenanted premises on the ground of personal necessity as alleged in the petition? OPP 3. Whether the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation and therefore, respondent is liable to be ejected?OPP 4. Whether the petition is fake and indefinite, if so, its effect?OPR 5. Whether the petition is not framed in accordance with the rules, if so, its effect?OPR 6. Whether the petition has been filed with mala fide intention, if so, its effect?OPR 7. Relief. Both the Courts came to the conclusion that the rate of rent was Rs.20/- per month which stood paid and there was no liability on the respondent to pay the same. The findings of personal necessity and the building being unsafe for human habitation were returned against the petitioner which is his cause of grievance in the instant revision petition. C.R.No.3957 of 2009 (O&M) -3- At the time of issuance of notice of motion a contention was raised before this Court that the application for additional evidence which the petitioner had moved before the Appellate Authority had not been decided. However, this contention has been found to be incorrect as the application was duly decided by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 8.4.2009 on which date the final proceedings were also determined. Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with such a situation addressed the issues on merits and pleaded that he purchased this house on 3.11.1986 and filed the eviction proceedings on 5.2.1987. He pleaded that he has two grown up children of 26 and 29 years of age and desperately requires the premises for his own use. He pleaded that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that he was joint in business with his father but it did not mean that he did not require the premises for his own use. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has justified the findings recorded by the courts below and has stated that the petitioner's categoric case was that he was residing in a rented premises, which was not proved. He further contended that the house of the father of the petitioner consisted of 8 to 10 rooms, which is sufficient accommodation for the petitioner, and that he has other property in the vicinity of the locality in Ambala City which he can occupy. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate C.R.No.3957 of 2009 (O&M) -4- Authority are erroneous. It is settled principle of law that the landlord is the best judge of his own needs and merely because a person is residing with his father does not necessarily imply that his need for a separate residence is ill-founded. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority primarily based their reasoning on this aspect of the matter which is totally unwarranted. The need of an adult person has to be viewed and assessed independently by the Rent Controller. Once it is pleaded that the petitioner requires the premises for his own family and has grown up children, then the need of the petitioner was to be assessed regardless of his status. For the same reason the contention of learned counsel for the respondent has to be rejected which is to the effect that the father of the petitioner has a house which consisted of 8 to 10 rooms and the same is sufficient to meet the needs of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the house stands in the name of the father of the petitioner and he does not have any other house to his credit which has also been determined in his testimony. In this view of the matter, the courts were certainly in error in observing that the need was not bona fide. Similarly, the courts below also committed an error by observing that the petitioner was bent upon for getting the premises vacated while answering the question of building being unsafe for human habitation. A landlord is free to avail himself of all the grounds which are available to him under Section 13 of the Act and merely because he takes a number of pleas and failed to substantiate a few of them cannot ipso facto be considered to be a reflection on his conduct. The Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance C.R.No.3957 of 2009 (O&M) -5- Company Ltd., 1998(2) RCR 533 has observed that it is the landlord who has to express his need and it is for the court to evaluate such a need on the basis of material before it, but under no circumstances can the tenant take the reins of the situation to determine the need of the landlord. Consequently, the findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority being palpably incorrect are set aside and the revision petition is accepted. 18.8.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss