Civil Revision No.1460 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1460 of 2008 Date of decision:09.02.2010. Jitender Kumar and another ...Petitioners Versus Mangat Ram ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Harmanjit Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. Both the Courts (the Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority) recorded a finding of fact upholding the plea of the landlord (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent herein') that he requires the tenanted premises for personal bona fide requirement. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the tenants (hereinafter referred to as `the petitioners herein'), argued that there is complete want of bona fides on the part of the respondent herein in having applied for the impugned eviction as he had already acquired residential premises at Meerut where he is putting up with his family. In support of the averment with regard to the want of bona fides, reliance was placed upon the fact that the respondent herein had conceded a suggestion that a Civil Court decree (vide which the tenanted premises fell to the share of the respondent herein) had been Civil Revision No.1460 of 2008 -2- obtained with a view to obtain ejectment (of the petitioners herein from the premises aforementioned). Qua the latter part of the averment, reliance was placed upon the fact that the respondent herein has himself conceded that he is residing in a house owned by him (at Meerut) with his family and that he had also conceded that the house aforementioned (bearing No.550/84, Saraswati Vihar) is shown in the municipal record as owned by him. Insofar as the former part of the averment raised is concerned, it is apparent from the record that this property had a number of co-sharers and that the suit was decreed with the consent of all the co-sharers. Though he did concede, as correct, a suggestion that the decree aforementioned was obtained in order to get the tenanted premises vacated, it would not validate an inference that the decree had been obtained by all the co-sharers with a mala fide intention only for the purposes of ejecting the petitioners herein from the tenanted premises. It is particularly so because the respondent herein conceded in the sentence to follow that the decree in respect of the tenanted premises in his favour was under the orders of the Court. One particular statement made by a witness cannot be read in isolation from the other material obtaining on the file and the statement of a witness has to be appreciated in totality. Insofar as the latter limb of the averred plea is concerned, there also the petitioners herein are not on a firmer footing. It is in the testimony on oath of the respondent herein that all his close relations are residing at Ambala. He has superannuated on retirement. Though he does appear to own a house at Merrut where he is Civil Revision No.1460 of 2008 -3- residing, law would give the landlord a discretion to decide where exactly he would like to reside. If a landlord obtains ejectment of a tenant from the tenanted premises on a plea of personal necessity and does not occupy it, it will be open to the tenant to get hold of the tenanted premises all over again in terms of the relevant Rent Legislation. For the moment, the law would agree with the landlord that the need indicated by him is bona fide. I am supported, in this view of mine, by the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Jagdish Lal Sehgal Vs. R.K.Jain, 2006(2) PLR 278. In that case too, the landlord did have a house at Panchkula, but he wanted to settle at Panipat. The tenant resisted the eviction of the tenanted premises under his occupation by raising a plea that the averment on behalf of the landlord was not bona fide. The plea was negatived by this Court. It was held that if the landlord wants to settle at Panipat, the tenant cannot be heard to say that the plea should be negatived because the landlord owns a house at Panchkula. The learned counsel for the petitioners, then, argued that the respondent herein having retired in the year 1992, cannot be averred to have acted bona fide when he filed the ejectment petition in the year 1997 on a plea of personal necessity. The plea merely deserves to be noticed to be discarded. It may be that the landlord initially decided to spend the post-retirement period at Meerut from where he had retired. He might have found an emotional void on account of all his close relations being at Ambala. That inclination of his cannot be faulted on any valid score. Even otherwise, the Ambala house being out of boundary till the time the Civil Revision No.1460 of 2008 -4- proceedings in this case were logically concluded, the respondent had, in fact, no option but to make some arrangement for the stay of the respondent himself and the other members of his family. The view obtained by both the Courts, and also the reasoning recorded in support thereof, deserve affirmation and it is so held accordingly. The petition shall stand dismissed. The interim order dated 11.03.2008 shall stand vacated. The petitioners herein shall have two months' time to vacate the premises aforementioned. February 09, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE