CR No. 6313 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6313 of 2008 Decided on : 17-11-2008 Vidya and another ....Petitioners VERSUS Jarnail Singh and others. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. MAHESH GROVER, J The only ground that has been raised while challenging the order of the learned Rent Controller passed pursuant to the provisions of Section 13 B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is that, the bona fide need of the respondent-landlord is neither reflected in the petition nor established by way of evidence on record. It is pleaded that the respondent- landlord himself has stated in his petition that he intends to return to India intermittently and occupy the premises and use it for his personal need while on his visit. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that such a need can never be termed to be bona fide as it has nowhere has been stated that the landlord-respondent wants to occupy and reside in the premises permanently. It has further been contended that the petitioner is only in possession of one room and kitchen out of eight rooms and three kitchens. Therefore, even if the prayer of the respondent-landlord is taken to be correct then the premises in his possession is sufficient to meet his CR No. 6313 of 2008 2 necessity. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The need of the landlord is to be viewed from his own perspective and there is no requirement of permanent residence in India under the provisions of Section 13 B of the Act. A desirous landlord who wishes to return to his native country may require the premises while on his visit. That apart the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that remaining seven rooms and two kitchens are sufficient to meet the requirement of the landlord is also mis-placed. A tenant can never dictate to a landlord as to what his requirements are and it is for the landlord to judge for himself as to what are his needs and how best he wishes to utilise his premises. No merit. Dismissed. November 17, 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge