IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4625 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 11.8.2010 Bhagat Singh ....Petitioner Versus Jagdish Kaur ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.K.S.Rekhi, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This petition by the tenant is directed against the order of the appellate authority dated 12.6.2010 vide which he has been ordered to be evicted from the premises in question. The respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of non- payment of rent, material impairment and that she requires the premises for her own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his son Bhagwant Singh who requires it for running the business of casting which he is presently carrying on in the premises occupied by the respondent. The petitioner tendered the arrears of rent, denied the allegations of material impairment as also that of personal necessity. The parties went to trial on the following C.R.No.4625 of 2010 (O&M) -2- issues :- 1) Whether the applicant is entitled for ejectment on the grounds mentioned in the petition?OPA 2) Whether the respondent is not in the arrears of rent?OPR 3) Whether the application is not maintainable?OPR 4) Relief. The learned Rent Controller rejected the plea of the respondent-landlady and in appeal the findings were reversed which has led to the filing of the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed his submissions only on the ground on which the personal need of the respondent has been upheld. He has contended that the need of the landlady did not stand established from any material on record. He contended further that she did not step in the witness box and only her power of attorney appeared whose testimony cannot be relied upon to establish the personal need of the landlady. He also contended that it has been proved on record that the respondent was having a vacant shop in the vicinity of the demised premises which is reflected from the photographs which are placed on the record as Annexure P-1. He further contended that there is sufficient evidence to show that the respondent had sufficient room for her accommodation . I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material on record. In so far as the plea that the respondent did not require C.R.No.4625 of 2010 (O&M) -3- the premises for her own use is concerned, I am of the opinion that there is categoric pleading of the respondent that she requires the demised premises for her own use and also for the use of her son Bhagwant Singh who requires it for running the business of casting. The need of the landlady if coterminous with that of the family members i.e. her son, daughter or any other such related member, then the benefit of the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act would certainly be extended to them also. The court cannot adopt a constrictive approach to determine the need of the landlady so as to restrict the benefit of the said provisions of law only to herself and not to her family members. Therefore, the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this score has to be rejected. The next contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the landlady did not depose before the Rent Controller and that the testimony of her power of attorney holder could not be construed to be a valid testimony to establish the need of the landlady. This contention too has to be rejected for the simple reason that the power of attorney holder was none other than the son of the landlady for whose personal need the petition had been filed and he being the best judge of his need was very well competent to depose on such an aspect of the matter. The next contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent had a vacant shop in the vicinity and there were sufficient rooms available for her in the residential area where her son could carry on the business of casting. I am afraid this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner C.R.No.4625 of 2010 (O&M) -4- has to be rejected. Although the photographs were produced on record but the same have not been proved. The appellate authority had returned a finding that it appeared to be a mere corridor and in any eventuality the landlady is the best judge of her own needs and thus the premises which she requires can hardly be expected of her to carry on the business of casting in the area where she is residing. The Supreme Court in Atma S.Brar v. Mukhtiar Singh 2003(1) Rent Control Reporter 42 held that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirements. Thus, looking from any angle, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. 11.8.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss