IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Civil Revision No. 2059 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 24.4.2009. Naranjan Singh .... Petitioner. Versus Jagir Kaur and Ors. .... Respondents. Civil Revision No. 2060 of 2009 Naranjan Singh .... Petitioner. Versus Jagir Kaur and Ors. .... Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. Present:- Mr. Arun Pali, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. A.V.S. Tung and Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocates, for the petitioner. Hemant Gupta, J (Oral) This order will dispose of above mentioned two civil revisions as the facts and law involved in both the petitions are the same. The tenant is aggrieved against the order of ejectment passed by Courts below on the ground that the demised premises is required for the bona fide use and occupation of the landlord. Landlord Ranjit Singh & his wife Jagir Kaur as co-owner filed the present petition for ejectment on 17.4.1996, seeking ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the house is required for their bona fide use and occupation. It is pleaded by Ranjit Civil Revision No. 2059 of 2009 -2- Singh that he is retired from Indian Air Force and at present is residing with his two sons at Chandigarh. The seven marla house at Chandigarh has fallen to the share of his two sons in oral family settlement as the relations of petitioner had become strained with his sons and daughters-in-law. Both the Courts have accepted the plea of bona fide requirement of the respondents and passed an order of ejectment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that prior to the filing of ejectment petition, landlord had made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner on 8.2.1996. In the said complaint, Ranjit Singh had averred that he requires the house in question for the use of his son who is expert in poultry business. It is pointed out that on such complaint, the tenant was called by the District Grievance Redressal Officer on 17.4.1996 on which date the proceedings were dropped but on the same day Ranjit Singh has filed the present ejectment petition. It is, thus, contended that requirement pleaded in the complaint is different than what had been pleaded before the Rent Controller. It shows that the landlord was finding an excuse to seek the ejectment of the tenant and that requirement pleaded is only sham and does not show his bona fides. I do not find any merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to order the eviction of a tenant. The complaint made to the Deputy Commissioner was by a dissatisfied citizen for redressal of his grievances. In the said complaint itself, the landlord has concluded that he requires the house for his personal use. In fact filing of the eviction petition on 17.4.1996, itself shows that the landlord was aware of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner Civil Revision No. 2059 of 2009 -3- does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The landlord has sought eviction of the petitioner on the plea that the seven marla house in Chandigarh has fallen within the share of his sons. Therefore, mere fact that the landlord has mentioned requirement of his son in a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner will not be sufficient to doubt the bonafides of the landlord in seeking ejectment of the tenant. It is further argued that the landlord has stayed in Chandigarh for almost 31 years before he sought ejectment of the petitioner. The person who is used to live comfortable life of Chandigarh will not be able to reside at Moga where the building is located, without any attached bathrooms and has cemented floor. It is not the case of the tenant that the landlord has any other residential accommodation available at Moga. Under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949, the requirement is that the landlord should not have own or possess any other accommodation within that urban area concerned. In the absence of availability of any suitable accommodation in the same urban area, the fact, whether the building is old or modren, will not be sufficient to doubt the bona fide of the landlord. It is for the landlord to choose his place of residence. The contention that landlord must stay in Chandigarh even though he may have strained relations with his daughters-in-law and sons is not tenable. Learned counsel for the petitioner, further argued that the landlord Ranjit Singh died on 24.11.2001 during the pendancy of the present petition before the Rent Controller and therefore and in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Aggarwal Vs. Dhanraji Devi, Civil Revision No. 2059 of 2009 -4- 2004 (2), RCR 498, on account of such subsequent events, the ground of personal requirement does not survive. The deceased Ranjit Singh, his wife Jagir Kaur were the petitioners before the learned Rent Controller. Even if one of the landlord has died, the other co-owner can seek ejectment. Ranjit Singh has sought the ejectment of the tenant to spend last days of his life in his own house. Such wish of Ranjit Singh could not be fulfilled as the proceedings in Court have taken more than 13 years. But the wife of the landlord who was the co-applicant with the landlord may be able to realise the dream of leading fag end of her life in her own house at Moga. Even as per Kedar Nath Aggarwal's case, the subsequent events are to be taken into consideration so as to do complete justice between the parties. In my view the ends of justice would, in fact, require that the possession of the house in dispute is delievered to the co-applicant at the earliest. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. Hence the present petitions are dismissed Learned counsel for the petitioner requests for sometime to vacate the premises. However, a perusal of the order shows that the appeal was dismissed on 22.11.2008. The petitioner has already taken more than five months. Therefore, I do not find any ground to grant any further time for vacation of the demised premises. April 24, 2009 (Hemant Gupta) tripti Judges