C.R. No.1892 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1892 of 2007 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: December 10, 2010 VIPIN KUMAR ...PETITIONER. VERSUS RAM KIRPAUL RASTOGI ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. S.M. SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. S.K.S. BEDI, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The matter has come on remand from the Hon'ble Supreme Court setting aside the order passed already by this Court on 13.1.2009, which order contained a mistake in making a reference to the order from the appellate Court in a Rent Control proceeding to be a concurrent decision with the Rent Controller, when, as a matter of fact, the Rent Controller had disallowed the landlord's requirement for personal use and occupation and that was set aside by the appellate Court. 2. The petition for eviction was sought on the grounds of alleged non-payment of rent and for personal necessity of the landlord. The issue that stood for consideration was only the ground of personal necessity, the tenant having tendered the rent during the course of proceedings. The Rent Controller, while dismissing the petition observed that the landlord was having more number of rooms that what he had stated and the actual number C.R. No.1892 of 2007 (O&M) -2- of availability of rooms as brought out through site plan evidenced that the landlord had not less than 8 bedrooms alongwith the drawing room, store and kitchen. The landlord was making a claim for his requirement for himself and for his grown-up sons who had been married and who were also living with him alongwith their respective spouses and in the present scheme of things the existing accommodation was not sufficient. The site plan showed also that the tenant was occupying only two rooms and an open terrace at the first floor and the Rent Controller, therefore, observed that the landlord had several rooms in his possession and there was no requirement for two more rooms. 3. The case of personal requirement has to be tested on what materials are available and the enquiry must be directed to see whether the landlord is seeking for an ejectment of the tenant for bona fide reasons or actuated by oblique motives. Such motive could be, for instance, an attempt by the landlord for a higher rent than what it was rented for or it could also be in situations where the landlord attempts to settle personal scores with the tenant for some difference that have erupted. In this case, it has come through the evidence that the landlord's family had grown in size and two of his sons had got married subsequent to the tenancy. The sons continuing to reside alongwith the father after the marriage is itself not in dispute. The requirement of landlord cannot be always measured in terms of the number of rooms that a landlord has and apportioned to each member one room. It shall depend more on the perspective of a landlord himself as what is necessary. There could be persons who could live in a small and modest house with all the members huddled together in the same room as it happens in many a home in India. There could also be a landlord who might like to C.R. No.1892 of 2007 (O&M) -3- live in large mansions with rooms spread-out for various requirements. The Rent Controller cannot dictate as rule of thumb that there could be an apportionment of one room for each one of his sons and children and spouses and if there were 8 bedrooms, the Rent Controller cannot assume that if, after all the family had only 3 pairs of spouses 8 bedrooms are not necessary. The home is not merely a composition of bedrooms. The approach of the Rent Controller was clearly wrong and the appellate Court has considered the case in its right perspective and allowed the petition for eviction. 4. The power of revisional Court in Rent Controller proceeding itself ought not to be taken as expansive to make intervention merely because another view is possible. If there is nothing amiss about its reasoning, I would see no ground for intervention. The appellate Court has given sufficient reasons for differing with the view of the Rent Controller. I cannot fault the same. 5. The appellant had already had the benefit of order for 3 months at the time when I disposed of the revision petition on 13.1.2009. The tenant has had the benefit of the order for continuance in possession for what turned out to be an order which was required to be set aside and is brought for disposal before this Court again. No further time necessary. 6. The order of the appellate authority is confirmed and the revision is dismissed. December 10, 2010 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE