Civil Rev. No. 2349 of 2001 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Rev. No. 2349 of 2001 Date of Decision: July 17, 2009 Rani Devi and others ....................................................Petitioners Versus Shakuntla Devi & Others ............................................ Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. P.S.Rana, Advocate with Mr. P.S. Rai, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The petitioners-tenants have filed this revision against the judgment dated 7.3.2001 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the `Haryana Rent Control Act') vide which the appeal filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant has been accepted and the petitioners have been directed to handover vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord within a period of two months. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondents-landlord filed a petition for ejectment from House No. 493, Bakra Market, Sadar Bazar, Karnal, against Girdhari Lal (now deceased) represented by his legal Civil Rev. No. 2349 of 2001 [ 2 ] representatives under Section 13 of the Haryana Rent Control Act. The ejectment was sought on the following grounds:- i) That the respondent has not paid the rent for the last three years i.e. from 1.2.90 to 31.3.93 @ 150/- per month total of which comes out to be Rs.5400/-. ii)That the premises are required for his personal use & occupation as he is residing in house No.537 comprising of just two rooms in which members of more than 10 of the family are residing. iii)That the premises are in dilapidated conditions. iv)That the respondent is quarrelsome in nature. It was averred by the landlord that he has a large family comprising of 16 members i.e. 4 sons and a daughter. It was further averred by the landlord that his elder son Chhote Lal is married having 4 children; that his second son Om Parkash is also married and has four children; that his third son Vijay Kumar is unmarried and his daughter Usha and his fourth son is also unmarried. It was further pleaded that all the members are residing in House No. 537 situated in Roop Nagar, Karnal, and the accommodation with him is insufficient for his personal needs. It was lastly pleaded by the landlord that he wants to arrange the marriage of his younger sons but on account of insufficiency of accommodation he has not been able to arrange for their marriages. It was also averred that he is also the owner of the house in dispute bearing No.493, Bakra Market, Sadar Bazar, Karnal, which consists of two rooms and the same was rented out to Girdhari Lal on a monthly rent of Rs.150/- and that the tenant be ordered to be evicted and be directed to vacate the said premises as the landlord requires the same for Civil Rev. No. 2349 of 2001 [ 3 ] his personal bona fide needs. The averments made by the landlord were denied by the tenant who submitted that during the pendency of the rent petition the landlord has let out one room in the disputed premises to one Babu Ram which shows that the landlord does not have any personal necessity. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- (1)Whether respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises, as alleged? OPP (2) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR (3) Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition by his own act and conduct? OPR (4) Whether the petitioner is barred by principle of res-judicata and estoppel? OPR (5) Relief. After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the learned counsel, the Rent Controller decided issue No.1 against the landlord while issue Nos. 2 to 4 were decided in favour of the landlord and against the tenant and consequently the rent petition was dismissed vide order dated 25.5.1998 by the Rent Controller. It was held by the trial Court that the landlord does not have a bona fide requirement of the demised premises for his personal use and occupation. The aforementioned judgment of the Rent Controller, Karnal, was challenged by the landlord by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority who accepted the appeal vide his judgment dated 7.3.2001 and held that as the landlord has a large family of 16 persons to house and Civil Rev. No. 2349 of 2001 [ 4 ] support and that the present premises of the landlord which comprises only of two rooms was insufficient for his personal requirements and, hence, allowed the appeal and directed the tenant to vacate the premises within a period of two months. It is against this judgment that the present revision has been filed. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant has argued that in the present case the landlord owns House No. 537 situated in Roop Nagar, Karnal, and in the disputed premises i.e. House No. 493, Bakra Market, Sadar Bazar, Karnal, one room had fallen vacant which the landlord has let out to one Babu Ram about 5/6 months earlier and this clearly shows that the landlord has no personal necessity. It has further been argued by the counsel for the tenant that the landlord has not disclosed in his rent petition that he is the owner of a residential house in the urban area, hence, he cannot be ordered to be evicted. Reference in this regard has been made to Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the Haryana Rent Control Act. The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners-tenant have been controverted by the counsel for the respondents-landlord. It has been submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the landlord owns House No.537 situated in Roop Nagar, Karnal, and one room has fallen vacant which has been let out to Babu Ram. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the letting out of one room would not disentitle the landlord from getting the house in dispute vacated. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Hans Raj v. Shrimati Ram Piari 1973 RCR 256 wherein it has been held that the mere fact that another portion fell vacant Civil Rev. No. 2349 of 2001 [ 5 ] during pendency of proceedings and let out by the landlord is no ground to refuse the eviction application on the ground of personal requirement. Counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the landlord has categorically mentioned in his rent petition that he is residing in House No.537 situated in Roop Nagar, Karnal, in which he is in occupation of just two rooms and that the accommodation with the landlord is insufficient for his requirements. Once this fact has been specifically pleaded in the rent petition then there is no contravention of the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Rent Control Act. It has lastly been argued by the counsel for the respondents that the landlord is living in only two rooms which are wholly insufficient for his large family which comprises of 16 members. It has been contended that the landlord has a wife, 4 sons and a daughter, out of whom his elder son Chhotte Lal is married having 4 children and his second son Om Parkash is also married having 4 children. His unmarried daughter is also living with him. He has also two unmarried sons. It has been argued that the present accommodation of two rooms is wholly insufficient to house the large family of the landlord and, therefore, he has a personal necessity to get the disputed house vacated. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record. The mere fact that the landlord had rented out one room in the disputed house to one Babu Ram during the pendency of the case would not disentitle the landlord from seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. Even if alternative accommodation was available, it is for the landlord to decide as to how and in what manner he should fulfil his Civil Rev. No. 2349 of 2001 [ 6 ] requirement. The tenant cannot dictate terms to his landlord as to how the latter should adjust his family and, hence, this argument of the counsel for the petitioners is devoid of any merit. In Hans Raj's case (supra) it was held that the mere fact that another portion fell vacant during pendency of proceedings and the same was let out by the landlord, the same would not be a ground to reject the eviction application of the landlord on the ground of personal requirement. The second argument raised by the counsel for the tenant that the landlord has not disclosed the fact that he is also the owner of another residential house in his rent petition and, hence, his eviction cannot be ordered, is also without force. A perusal of the rent petition clearly shows that the landlord has disclosed the fact that he owns another residential premises i.e. House No. 537, Roop Nagar, Karnal, in which he is residing with his large family of 16 members in just two rooms. Thus, there is no violation of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Rent Control Act. Admittedly, in the present case the landlord has a large family of 16 members. It is obviously very difficult for the landlord to house such a large family in just two rooms. On the face of it the accommodation of two rooms is absolutely insufficient and, hence, the landlord has a right to seek eviction of the tenant. There is no doubt in my mind that the landlord does require the premises for his personal use and he requires the demised premises for his personal bona fide needs. As such, the findings of the Appellate Authority with regard to the bona fide requirement of the demised premises is not perverse or unreasonable in any manner and accordingly the judgment of the Appellate Authority is upheld. In view of the above, I find no merit in this revision petition Civil Rev. No. 2349 of 2001 [ 7 ] and the same is dismissed. The petitioners-tenants are directed to handover vacant possession of the house in dispute to the respondents-landlord on or before 31.10.2009. 17.7.2009 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE