CR No.1890 of 2003 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1890 of 2003 Date of Decision: 17 - 12 - 2008 Santokh Singh ....Petitioner v. Smt.Gian Kaur and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate and Gauravdeep Goel, Advocate for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL) In the present case, eviction petition was filed by Gian Kaur widow of Hira Singh along with her son for eviction of Santokh Singh tenant. It was stated in the eviction petition that Santokh Singh was inducted as tenant by Gian Kaur in the tenanted premises at the rate of Rs.225/- p.m.. Detail of tenanted premises has been given in the eviction petition. It was further stated that electricity charges were to be paid by the tenant separately. The first ground taken in the eviction petition was that the tenant has not paid the rent w.e.f. 1.8.1994 and secondly the premises are required for bona fide personal necessity. It was stated that Gian Kaur CR No.1890 of 2003 [2] landlady was living with her son and she was having strained relations with her daughter-in-law Kuldip Kaur. It was further pleaded that landlady Gian Kaur has three daughters who after marriage visit her along with their husbands and children and due to behaviour of daughter-in-law, she feel embarrassed in looking after them, their husbands and children. It was further stated that quarrel with her daughter-in-law has caused her mental tension. Third ground raised was that petitioner-tenant is a source of nuisance as he hurls filthy abuses and filthy language and also quarrels with the landlady. A written statement was filed. It was stated that rent was Rs.120/- p.m. and the entire arrears of rent have been tendered. Ground of personal necessity was also denied. It was stated that Kuldip Kaur is not daughter-in-law and landlady should approach the police station against the behaviour of her daughter-in-law as she is also a pension holder being a widow of Hira Singh, freedom fighter. A replication was filed in which the averments made in the ejectment petition were reiterated and that of the written statement were denied. The Rent Controller had formulated the issues. Sucha Singh has appeared as AW-1. He was examined to prove Rs.225/- p.m. as rent. Yog Raj neighbourer appeared as AW-3 to state about strained relations between landlady Gian Kaur and her daughter- in-law. Bawa Ram PW-4 was examined also to state about the strained relations between Gian Kaur and her daughter-in-law. Gian Kaur herself appeared as PW-5 and stated about strained relations with her daughter- inlaw. She stated that she cook the meal herself. The tenant examined Sucha Singh RW-1. He was examined to prove rent of the tenanted CR No.1890 of 2003 [3] premises to be Rs.120/- p.m. RW-2 Buta Singh was examined to state that tenant is not a nuisance and personal need of the landlord is not bona fide. The Rent Controller examined the evidence and held the rent to be Rs.220/- p.m.. In view of the tender having been made by the tenant, the Rent Controller concluded that ground of non payment of rent is not available. Regarding ground of personal necessity, the Rent Controller took into consideration certificate of Samman Patra bestowed upon Hira Singh husband of Gian Kaur and also pension awarded to Gian Kaur as wife of freedom fighter. Rent Controller held that since landlady is being paid Rs.5100/- p.m. as pension, she can cook herself, therefore, she is entitled to live independently. An appeal was filed. The Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller. Mr.Anil Chawla appearing for the petitioner-tenant state that respondent Gian Kaur is 85 years and, therefore, because of her age, she require the company of her son and daughter-in-law. He further state that story of strained relations between Gian Kaur and her daughter-in-law is concocted one. It has been further stated that son Jagtar Singh and daughter-in-law Kuldip Kaur have not been examined to show that relations are strained. He relied upon Smt.Hira Devi v. Sh.Dewan Singh and anr., 1990(1) PLR 180 to state that it was held by this Court that in ordinary course of human conduct, old persons want to spend last years of their lives in company of their children in spite of their difference with daughter-in- laws and in that case need of the landlady was held not to be genuine. He has further relied upon Lakshmi Devi v. Dr.Mela Ram, 1982(1) RCR (Rent) 259 to state that therein landlady was aged 77 years. She intend to live separately. It was held therein that this cannot be accepted as old lady CR No.1890 of 2003 [4] does require to be looked after by her children. It has been further contended that since landlady and son are using one house, it cannot be said that they are not in possession of the property as son and Gian Kaur were in possession of the one house. To controvert this, Mr.Chatrath has stated that tenanted premises and the premises where landlady and her son are residing constitute part of one building. Mr.Chatrath has relied upon Kishan Chand v. V.K.Dhawan, 1999(1) Judicial Reports (Civil & Rent) 297 to say that mother-in-law has right to live separately. He has further placed reliance upon Kashmir Chand v. Bhagwan Dass and others, 1985(1) RLR 697 to state that due to constant quarrel between wife and mother, need of personal necessity is bona fide. I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner. The social milieu which we have, no daughter-in-law and the son will come forward to state that mother-in-law or mother is not being looked after well. To say, that because of old age, one is disqualified from self respect and dignity, cannot be accepted. Old age cannot be construed to be age of dependency. It is not necessary that one as old human being should remain at the mercy of son and daughter-in-law. In the present case, Gian Kaur has sufficient means. She is having pension. When the case was decided by the Rent Controller on 9.2.2002, her pension was Rs.5100/-p.m. which by now may have increased manifold. Her three daughters and husband along with grand children visit her. She can afford a servant for cooking. Therefore, she can live in the premises with self respect and dignity. No lady will come forward to say that her relations with her daughter-in-law are strained and there is a day to day quarrel. Old age is not CR No.1890 of 2003 [5] a liability. In the evening of life, one need to have peaceful days so that one can live away from mundane affairs and can spend his time the way one need to spend. Therefore, two Courts below having rightly held need of Gian Kaur to be genuine, her personal necessity is made out. In view of above observations, no interference is called for as the findings arrived at by two courts below are not perverse. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) December 17, 2008. JUDGE RC