CIVIL REVISION NO.6348 OF 2006 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 16, 2008 Smt.Sushila .....Petitioner VERSUS Smt.Harbhajan Kaur ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. C. B. Goel, Mr. Vivek Singla & Mr.Nitin Jain, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Palli, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Vitin Thatai, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos.6348, 6349 and 6367 of 2006 (Smt.Sushila Vs. Smt.Harbhajan Kaur). The petitioner, who is a tenant in a double storeyed house bearing No.1/106, Daya Nand Colony, Model Town, Karnal, is faced with the eviction order on a petition filed by respondent, Harbhajan Kaur. Respondent-landlady is in occupation of the first floor of the said house, which is stated to be in her possession. The petitioner is CIVIL REVISION NO.6348 OF 2006 :{ 2 }: staying on the ground floor of house on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- excluding water tax, house tax and electricity charges. He has taken this house on rent in the year 1993. The respondent-lady sought ejectment of the petitioner on two grounds i.e. arrears of rent and that the house is needed for her personal use and occupation. The rent was not paid by the petitioner for different periods. There was also dispute in regard to rate of rent and that is perhaps the reason, the respondent had to file more than one eviction petitions. The Appellate Court, thus, has disposed of three separate appeals pertaining to separate orders so made. The primary submission made by respondent-lady to seek eviction of the petitioner was on the basis of her old age and the infirm state of health of her husband. The respondent lady is stated to be about 66 years of age whereas her husband is over 70 years of age. A perusal of the record would show that presently the respondent-lady and her husband are staying in the upper story of House No.210-R, Model Town, Karnal. In this house, the respondent has 1/5th share as it has devolved on five different share-holders from the mother-in-law of the respondent-landlady. It is further disclosed that the respondent-landlady is suffering from heart ailment and has produced on record the evidence of a doctor from P.G.I. as well as from a doctor at Karnal. It is also disclosed that she has got fixed a pacemaker, which will give indication of state of her health. The husband is also stated to be suffering from arthritis. It is accordingly pleaded that it is difficult for the landlady to stay at the first floor of CIVIL REVISION NO.6348 OF 2006 :{ 3 }: the house where they are presently residing. The case of the respondent further is that the other members of the family who are the share holders in the house at Model Town, Karnal, are insisting on the respondent to vacate the accommodation as they also now want to settle with the shares, which they have in the house. It is on the basis of this personal requirement of house and occupation of the house in dispute that the present eviction petition was filed. The Rent Controller, after appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the landlady was able to establish her personal need for use and occupation of this house. He accordingly ordered the eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner has remained unsuccessful in his appeal and has now filed this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a feeble attempt to justify that the respondent-landlady is occupying a house where she is comfortable and as such, the personal necessity, as projected, would not fully stand established. The counsel has further submitted that son of the landlady is working as a doctor in P.G.I. and as such, the medical record, which has been produced in support of the case set up by the respondent, could easily be procured. Mr.Palli, on the other hand, would draw my attention to the settled proposition of law that it is not the right of the tenant to make choice for the landlord. He would also refer to a settled position of law that it is for the landlord to see how he wants to live or utilise his premises. According to the counsel, need, as projected, otherwise is required to be presumed, unless otherwise proved. He would say that need in the present case is rather dire. The sickness, which the respondent lady is suffering is CIVIL REVISION NO.6348 OF 2006 :{ 4 }: quite evident from the fact that she had got fixed a pacemaker. The age in itself would be enough to indicate that they genuinely would need to occupy the accommodation, which is on the ground floor. I am not much impressed with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the settled position of law of detailed discussion or reference to the law is not required to be made. I have otherwise perused the record and do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority. The revision petitions are accordingly without merit and are dismissed as such. At this state, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of some time to the petitioner to make some alternative arrangement of accommodation. Considering this prayer, I deem it appropriate to grant three months' time to the petitioner to vacate the demised premises. Ordered accordingly. This shall, however, be subject to his filing an undertaking before this Court in the form of an affidavit to the effect that he will vacate the demised premises on or before 14.8.2008. The petitioner shall also undertake to deposit the rent upto 14.8.2008. The needful be done within two weeks. The petitions are adjourned to 29.5.2008 for filing the requisite undertaking. May 16, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE