Civil Revision No.998 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.998 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.02.2009 Mohini Sodhi .............Petitioner Vs. Chander Shekhar ............Caveator/Respondent Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Jain, Advocate for the caveator-respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K.KANNAN, J. 1. The landlord's application for ejectment under the East Urban Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on the ground of his personal requirement was ordered by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and the tenant, who is aggrieved against the orders, is the revision petitioner before this Court. 2. The bona fides of the requirement of the landlord was expressed through the circumstance that the landlord was actually residing in a rented premises and he having purchased the property wanted to move into his own property. He had explained his need also by the fact that he had two grown up children and he wanted to expand the existing construction for more convenient living. The Civil Revision No.998 of 2009 (O&M) -2- tenant tested the bona fides by referring to the fact that the landlord was an IPS Officer serving under the Government and he was actually entitled even to a Government accommodation. Even the property of which he was in possession in Sector 34-D, Chandigarh was not shown to be rented out in his favour by M/s D.M. Oil Mills and General Industries, Khanna of which the landlord claimed to be a partner. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant argued that documents had not been placed before the Court to show that the property had been taken on rent from some other land owner and the details of the lease were not specifically made available. 3. The learned Senior Counsel urged that after all as an IPS Officer, the landlord was entitled to a Government accommodation and there was no need for him to opt for house which was relatively small than his entitlement. He laid emphasis on the fact that the property had been purchased by him knowing fully well that it was in the hands of a tenant and the petition had been filed even within a few months after the purchase. These factors according to the learned Senior Counsel betrayed the lack of bona fides on the part of the landlord. 4. Whenever it is shown that a landlord applying for his personal needs is actually in possession of only a rented premises, the bona fides will be one of automatic presumption. It will be wholly irrelevant for a tenant to contend that the house, which the landlord is in occupation of elsewhere is a more comfortable house and it is not a defence which is available to a tenant. What is comfortable or convenient to a landlord is certainly a mental component and a smaller Civil Revision No.998 of 2009 (O&M) -3- house which is own house could be even more comfortable than a large spacious house which is tenanted. Right to own property and reside in one's own house is perhaps one of the strongest human emotions that impels a person to acquire properties. I, therefore, reject the contention of the tenant that the bona fides is suspect only on account of the fact that the landlord has a larger house or that he is entitled to an allotment of a larger house by the Government being a high ranking police officer. The further contention of the learned Counsel that the landlord had not disclosed his own interest in M/s D.M. Oil Mills and General Industries is equally without substance since the landlord could not be expected to prove a negative fact any more than merely stating that the property in which he was in occupation of, he was not himself an owner and that it had been rented out to him by another company in which he was a partner. If according to the tenant that property was also owned by the landlord and therefore, he was not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 13 (3) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, the burden was on the tenant to establish that such other property actually belonged to the landlord and hence, he was ineligible to seek resort to the particular provision of the Act for his personal necessity. 5. The landlord had established his bona fides in the manner required by law, as found by the Courts below and there is no scope for intervention in civil revision. The tenant, who is present in person in Court, gives an undertaking that she will vacate the premises within six months provided she is allowed to continue on the same terms. 6. The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed and Civil Revision No.998 of 2009 (O&M) -4- recording the oral undertaking given in the court, time for eviction shall be six months. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 26, 2009 Pankaj*