C.R. No. 624 of 2008 Vinod Kumar vs. Mulakh Raj Present: Mr.V.M.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. **** While rejecting the prayer of the petitioner the appellate Court has observed as under:- “They are residing together in one house. Daughter of Mulakh Raj is also married. Vinod Kumar tenant RW-2 has admitted that son and daughter-in-law of the petitioner are also residing in the property shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.A.48. It is correct that married daughter, her husband and relatives used to come to the petitioner and his family in the house/portion in possession of the petitioner shown in red colour in Ex.A.48. He do not know if in the portion in possession of Mulakh Raj as shown in Ex.A.48 there is no bed room, drawing room, baithak for the purpose of comfortable settlement of his son, daughter-in-law, daughter, son-in- law and other relatives. It is also correct that there is no proper place with the petitioner for sitting purpose of the above said persons in the house shown in Ex.A.48. The site plan of this portion in possession of the house of landlord is Ex.A.48. Only portion shown as red colour is in his possession. The portion shown as red in colour in the site plan Ex.A.1 is in possession of the tenant. There C.R. No. 624 of 2008 -2- is nothing on the file that landlord is having any other premises in his possession at the time of filling the petition. Everyone knows that a married son requires separate accommodation. There is nothing on the file that petitioner is leading a luxurious life and is having sufficient accommodation in his possession. He wants to get the premises vacated for his tenant in order to settle his married son there, so need of the petitioner is bona fide. The learned trial Court has rightly held the same and rightly decided the issue No.3 in favour of the petitioner/landlord. There is no ground to interfere in the same.” From the above observations, as recorded, it can be seen that the respondent-landlord was able to establish his plea for bona fide need of the demised premises for his use. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, refers to a fact that AW-2 Manmohan Kumar, who is closely related to the respondent-landlord, had admitted that three rooms on the first floor and another one room are owned by the petitioner. Counsel further says that this aspect has not been taken into consideration while rejecting his appeal. It has been held in large number of cases that it is not for the tenant to make a choice for the landlord as to how and where he should live. This choice basically is of a landlord and once he has been able to establish bona fide need of the demised premises for C.R. No. 624 of 2008 -3- his use, he can not be ousted merely on the ground that he is having some other accommodation. This aspect has been touched by the appellate Court by observing that even the tenant-petitioner did not know if in the portion in possession of Mulakh Raj, as shown in Ex.A.48, there is no bed room, drawing room, baithak for the purpose of comfortable settlement of his son and daughter-in-law, how under these circumstances he would know what other accommodation is owned by the landlord. It is also noticed that there is nothing on the file that the petitioner is having sufficient accommodation. No case for interference, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, is made out. The present revision petition is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the time be granted to the petitioner to look for some alternative accommodation. His prayer is that the petitioner be granted time till May 31, 2008 in this regard. Let the petitioner file an affidavit to this effect that he will hand over the vacant possession of the house by May 31, 2008. He would also deposit the entire rent due along with affidavit before the executing Court. In case this part of the direction is complied with by him within 15 days, he will have time till May 31, 2008 to vacate the accommodation. However, the present petition otherwise is dismissed. (RANJIT SINGH) JUDGE January 31, 2008 anita