C.R. No.991 of 2003 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.991 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.07.2010 Sushila Devi ……Petitioner VERSUS Hukam Chand ……Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Rajesh Sood, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent. ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition is filed impugning the order dated 16.5.2002 passed by learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh in a peti- tion under Section 13-A of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, whereby the learned Rent Controller has dismissed the petition of the landlord for the eviction of the tenant-respondent. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that petition under Sec- tion 13-A was preferred by the landlord-petitioner before the learned Rent Controller saying petitioner was in the service of the Punjab C.R. No.991 of 2003 (O&M) -2- Government and was sent on deputation to the Union Territory, Chandigarh and was working in Central Craft Training Institute run by the Union Territory, Chandigarh and she retired from the government service on 31.12.1998; she has further pleaded in the petition that top floor of the building is in the tenancy of the respondent herein, however, her family members are residing in the same building. She further states that accommodation available with the landlord is insuf- ficient for all the family members and visitors; she claimed that she would be requiring additional portion to adjust herself and family members. Tenant has not disputed that petitioner was in Govt. serv- ice and stood retired from the Govt. service on 31.12.98. It is not de- nied that petition under Section 13 A was filed within specified time. The only case taken by the tenant is that accommodation available with the landlord in the same building is more than sufficient. Land- lord can very well adjust therein and does not require tenanted por- tion. 3. Learned Rent Controller in paragraph No.14 has ob- served as under:- “14. After hearing the ld. Counsel for both the parties and after going through the case file very carefully, it is observed that although it is prerogative of the land lord to decide as to how much accommodation is sufficient for the landlord and the family but in the present case, the landlady i.e. petitioner is staying with her one son, who is aged about 25-26 C.R. No.991 of 2003 (O&M) -3- years and as per the testimony of the peti- tioner, he is not doing anything. She has not been able to prove that her daughter who is married is staying with her and she needs the accommodation on the top floor to settle her son. The accommodation on the ground floor is sufficient for the persons i.e. petitioner and her son. Other son of the petitioner is admit- tedly staying abroad and the husband of the petitioner is also away to Iran. The present petition has been filed under Section 13-A of the Rent Act. But, the petitioner has failed to prove that the accommodation with her is in- sufficient and she has not stated any thing that her children are residing somewhere else and want to join her in the house in question, for which she requires the accommodation on the top floor which is in possession of the re- spondent as a tenant and she has failed to prove this issue and same is decided against her.” 4. This Court is of the opinion that this is for the landlord to decide that how much accommodation would be needed for entire family of the landlord. Tenant can not dictate the landlord to adjust in the portion already available with the landlord. If landlord wants to live with his family members and wants larger accommodation as per his status then eviction of the tenant should not be refused. In the present case, learned Rent Controller has refused the eviction of the C.R. No.991 of 2003 (O&M) -4- tenant on the ground that landlord can adjust herself in the portion which is already available with her. That finding is not only wrong but against the settled principles of law. Judgment impugned dated 16.5.2002 can not be sustained in the eyes of law. 5. This revision petition is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 16.5.2002 is set aside and petition filed under Section 13-A of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is allowed. 6. At this stage, learned Counsel appearing for the respon- dent made request that some suitable time may be granted to the re- spondent-tenant to vacate the premises in dispute. 7. Accordingly, dispossession of the respondent-tenant on the disputed premises shall remain stayed till 31.12.2010. 8. It is directed that respondent-tenant shall furnish usual undertaking to the effect that he will vacate the premises in dispute on or before 31.12.2010 before learned learned Rent Controller within two weeks from today. However, it is made clear that in the event of non-furnishing of the undertaking by the respondent-tenant, eviction order shall be executed forthwith. ( ALOK SINGH ) 02nd July, 2010 JUDGE ashish