IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6642 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 04.12.2009 Surinder Pal Singh Chinna .....Petitioner versus Smt.Krishna Nakra .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Amit Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr.Divanshu Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted from the ground floor of the residential H.No.223, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh, comprising four bedrooms with attached bathrooms, drawing-cum-dinning, kitchen, lobby and servant room, by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide the order dated 13.10.2008 which has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide the impugned judgment dated 17.8.2009. As per the case pleaded by the respondent-landlady, the demised premises was let out to the petitioner-tenant on a monthly rent of C.R. No.6642 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Rs.18,000/- excluding water and electricity charges, vide lease deed dated 4.12.2003 which was later on extended upto 31.12.2005. She further averred that the petitioner-tenant is liable to vacate the demised premises, inter-alia, on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.2005 onwards and that she requires the tenanted premises for her own use and occupation, namely, for her son-Manu Nakra, his wife and two minor children i.e. son aged about 15 years and daughter aged about 10 years, who are residing in a rented accommodation on the first floor of H.No.1619, Sector 36-B, Chandigarh. The respondent-landlady averred that her son Manu Nakra is a Captain in the Merchant Nevy and his landlord has already asked him to vacate the first floor of the rented accommodation. The respondent-landlady further averred that she and her husband are 70 and 75 years of age, respectively (at the time of filing of the eviction petition) and need help from their son and his family at this old age as they are not keeping good health. Besides Manu Nakra, the respondent-landlady has another son who is residing in Delhi and he also keeps on visiting her and she requires a separate room for him as well. Similarly, the respondent-landlady averred that one separate room is also required for the visiting guests. The respondent-landlady further averred that at present she is residing in the annexe portion of the house which consists of two bedrooms, attached bathrooms, kitchen and lobby only, which is wholly insufficient to meet her personal requirements. It may be observed here that the respondent-landlady had raised yet another ground for ejectment, namely, the change of user and C.R. No.6642 of 2009 (O&M) 3 alleged conversion of a part of the demised premises by the petitioner- tenant for office purposes under the name and style of M/s Chhina & Company, without her consent and that the verandah of the house had been covered by putting sheets. The petitioner contested the eviction petition and claimed that the monthly rent of the demised premises was Rs.9000/- only. He denied the execution of the rent note. Disputing the personal necessity of the respondent, the petitioner alleged that the eviction petition has been filed with malafide intention and with a view to enhance the rent, as, according to the petitioner, Manu Nakra-son of the respondent-landlady, is residing separately since long and is not even in visiting terms with the respondent or her husband. It was also averred that the respondent and her family members are having various residential plots within the urban area of Chandigarh and that there is sufficient accommodation available with them to meet the alleged requirement. The allegations regarding change of user or utilization of a part of the demised premises for business activities of M/s Chhina & Company, were also denied. The parties went on trial on the following issues:- “1. What is the rate of rent? OPP. 2. Whether the rent tendered by the respondent is short and invalid, if so, to what effect? OPP. 3. Whether the document dated 1.1.2005 produced by the plaintiff is a forged document, if so, to what effect? OPR. 4. Whether the demised premises is required bonafide by the petitioner and her family members for their personal use and occupation, as prayed for? OPP. C.R. No.6642 of 2009 (O&M) 4 5. Whether the respondent has changed the user of the tenanted premises from residential to commercial without the consent of the petitioner, if so, its effect? OPP. 6. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted for making various additions and alterations in the demised premises without the consent of the petitioner? OPP. 7. Relief.” In addition to stepping into the witness box as PW-1, the respondent-landlady also examined Surinder Kaur wife of Sh.Bakshish Singh, r/o H.No.1619, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh (PW3) and some more witnesses in support of her plea(s). Taking into consideration the facts that the son of the respondent-landlady, namely, Manu Nakra, is living in a rented accommodation in Sector 36-B, Chandigarh and at this age, the respondent and her husband undoubtedly require the help and would, therefore, like their son and his family to stay alongwith them in the demised premises. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh accepted the plea of bonafide personal necessity of the respondent-landlady, resulting into the eviction order dated 13.10.2008. The tenant went in appeal but that has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide the impugned judgment dated 17.8.2009. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Upon notice, Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr.Divanshu Jain, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent- C.R. No.6642 of 2009 (O&M) 5 landlady. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned orders. There is indeed no serious dispute that the respondent and her husband are quite aged persons and do not keep good health. At this juncture of life, any old person would need and expect the help from his other family members. Admittedly, another son of the respondent, namely, Rajan Nakara is residing in Delhi alongwith his family. Under these circumstances, the respondent and her husband are well justified to expect that their another son, namely, Manu Nakra and his family to reside with them. Such a personal need cannot be termed a mere 'wish' or 'desire'. It is also on record that the afore-said son of the respondent is residing in a tenanted premises, namely, first floor of H.No.1619, Sector 36-B, Chandigarh. It may be true that he maintains co-ordial relations with his landlady and is not facing any eviction proceedings, but he cannot be said to be residing in that tenanted house as a matter of right. Suffice it to observe that once Manu Nakara and his family join the respondent and her husband, the old couple would be socially secured and properly looked after. In these circumstances, the concurrent finding of fact returned by the Courts below on the correct appreciation of evidence on record, warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. At this stage, it is pointed out that after rejection of his objections by the Rent Controller, the petitioner-tenant has got filed afresh objections from a third party who has claimed himself to be in possession C.R. No.6642 of 2009 (O&M) 6 of some portion of the demised premises. Suffice it to say that no such plea was taken by the petitioner-tenant in his written statement or in his evidence led before the Rent Controller. The intervention of a stranger to these proceedings and that too at the execution stage, prima-facie, is an attempt to harass the respondent and her husband. The Executing Court is accordingly directed to proceed with the execution proceedings on day to day basis to give effect to the eviction orders. The revision petition stands dismissed. 04-12-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE