Civil Revision No.1070 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1070 of 2009 Date of decision : 11.1.2010 Ramesh Chand Goyal ....Petitioner Versus Murari Lal Gupta ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Chanan Singh, Advocate for the respondents S. D. ANAND, J. Respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”) applied for the eviction of the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) from the premises under reference (hereinafter referred to as “the premises”) on plea of non- payment of rent and personal necessity which was averred to be bonafide in character. In a finding of concurrence, the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority recorded that the respondent had been able to prove that he required the premise for his personal use and occupation. The controversy about non- payment of rent was rendered infructuous in view of the fact that the Civil Revision No.1070 of 2009 -2- **** tender of due amount was made before the learned Rent Controller. Even before the learned Appellate Authority, there was no controversy about that part of the finding. It is in the pleadings and also the own statement of the respondent that he is presently residing in a rented accommodation which is situated in a congested and polluted locality and that he being a man aged about 70 years experiences great pain in his knee joints while climbing the stairs to reach tenanted first floor premises. The testimony on oath of the respondent was supported at the trial by that of his son Suresh Kumar. The medical documentation in the context is available on record in the statement of PW-3- Dr. P.K.Sodhi, a duly duly qualified Physician practicing at Delhi, who conceded having issued the relevant certificate Ex. P6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the finding on point of personal necessity deserves to be invalidated for two reasons. The respondent had himself conceded that he is living at Delhi in house owned by him. Inspite thereof, he had refrained from making a mention of that fact in the pleadings and had instead opted to make a false averment that he is putting up in a rented accommodation. Further, he had conceded that he owns a house at Beri. In support of the averment in the preceding sentence, attention of this Court was invited towards the statement of respondent in the course of cross-examination. It is also pointed out that factum of the respondent owning the house at Beri is also conceded by his son Suresh Kumar who entered the witness box as Civil Revision No.1070 of 2009 -3- **** PW-2. The learned counsel was not on a firmer footing when he raised above two counts of criticism. There can be no dispute with the fact that the respondent did aver, in the course of the ejectment petition that he is putting up in the rented accommodation. It was in the course of cross-examination he is recorded to have volunteered a statement that he owns a house at Delhi and resides over there with his son. However, in a latter part of the cross-examination, a suggestion was put to him that he owns a residential house at Delhi and that he is very comfortably lodged over there. He denied the suggestion as incorrect. It is apparent from a conjunctive perusal of both parts of cross-examination that there was some misconception somewhere either in the mind of the respondent or somewhere in recording of evidence. If the respondent had initially conceded that he has a residential house of his own at Delhi, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have put the above quoted suggestion to him. It is that suggestion which was denied by the respondent as incorrect. That denial may be appreciated in the light of the categorical averment by the respondent that his three sons (including the son with whom he himself is putting up and who entered the witness box as PW-2) are putting up in a rented accommodation. Before making that statement, he had denied, as incorrect, a suggestion that all his three sons own their individual residential houses at Delhi. On a perusal of his testimony in entirety, I have no manner of doubt that the stance adopted by the respondent was that Civil Revision No.1070 of 2009 -4- **** he is putting up in a rented accommodation at Delhi and that he does not own any residential accommodation over there. Insofar as the owning of a house by the respondent at Beri is concerned, learned counsel is relying upon only a part of the statement made by the respondent. It would be apparent from a perusal of the statement made by the respondent that though he did concede that he owns a house at Berii, he also added that it is in a dilapidated state. In the light of that statement, the fact of PW-2 Suresh Kumar having conceded that fact (of the respondent owning a house at Beri) is rendered insignificant. Even otherwise, how exactly the owning of a house at Beri would disable the respondent from raising a claim for ejectment of the petitioner from premises under reference (located at Rohtak) defies logical comprehension because Beri and Rohtak form part of different urban areas and there is nothing in the rent Legislation relied upon to indicate that a landlord owning residential house in a different urban area is dis- entitled from getting his house situated in a different urban area vacated. There is plethora of law on the point that there is certain amount of acceptable legal sacrosance attached to the testimony on oath of a landlord about his bonafide requirement for perusal use and occupation of tenanted premises and it has to be left to the discretion of the landlord to decide which premises he would prefer to occupy for personal use and occupation, even if it is found that he owns more than one premises over there. Ofcourse, in the present Civil Revision No.1070 of 2009 -5- **** case, there is no evidence that the respondents owns any house in the urban area where the house under reference is located. Insofar as the house at Beri is concerned, it is in a dilapidated condition as stated by the respondent whose statement to the above effect was not challenged at the trial. The concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts upholding the contention that there is bonafide need on the part of the respondent to occupy the tenanted premises is relatable to the material obtaining on the file. I find myself in full agreement with the finding and also the reasoning adopted in support thereof. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner- tenant shall have one month from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. January 11,2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE