Civil Revision No. 4154 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4154 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.4.2010 Sampson James ...Petitioner Versus Ms. Monica Gupta ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate for the respondent. S.D.ANAND, J. The view obtained by the learned Rent Controller that the tenanted premises are required by the respondent-landlord for personal bonafide use and occupation was affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, states that the desire indicated by the respondent- landlord for larger accommodation is a mere wish thinking inasmuch- as accommodation available with him is sufficient to meet the needs of his family. The plea raised is devoid of force. In the course of paras 16 & 17, the learned Appellate Authority had recorded a self- contained reasoning to uphold the view earlier obtained by the learned Rent Controller. The observations made by the learned Appellate Authority, in the course of paras 16 & 17, are extracted Civil Revision No. 4154 of 2009 -2- **** hereunder:- “16. In view of the above discussed, it has been specifically stated by the respondent land lady that the accommodation with her and her family is not sufficient accommodation which consists of only one room, one drawing cum dining room, one kitchen and verandah and she requires tenanted premises in addition to premises occupied by her. Thus even if respondent consists of family of three members, she her husband and infant daughter, yet it can not be said that it is unreasonable on her part to want more accommodation. One room is occupied by her, meaning there by that there is no room for guests. It is natural that a growing child would also require more accommodation. In the case of Reflex International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajinder Dev Chopra 2009(1) RCR (Rent) 229 (Delhi) the view that underlying principles of rent restriction legislations is that there should be no exploitation of the tenants at the hands of landlords. These restrictions, however cannot be construed or interpreted so as to make the protection conferred on the tenant as a source of torture and gross injustice to the landlord, who at the time of his bona fide needs is not even allowed to re-occupy his premises. Thus I also draw support from the cited case. It can be safely concluded that the respondent is in bona fide requirement of tenanted premises. Civil Revision No. 4154 of 2009 -3- **** 17. The statement on behalf of the appellant through his Power of Attorney and that of Sh. Rajinder as RW2 shall have no negative consequence on bona fide requirement of the respondent. The arguments on behalf of the appellant are that in order to turn it as bona fide requirement, the need of landlord must be genuine and nor mere wish. In the case in hand it can be said that requirement of respondent is not a mere wish. Certainly one room accommodation is not enough. As regards, the other requirement that neither the respondent nor her husband has other property in Urban area of Pinjore has also been averred by the respondent by specific pleading in this regard which has not been disputed by the appellant but has only been denied for want of knowledge. The respondent in order to affirm her stand has also stated on Oath while stepping in witness box, there is no rebuttal to this. Thus need of respondent being genuine and bona fide that tenanted premises is required for her and her family members apart from portion already in her occupation. I find no reason to interfere in the findings of Rent Controller. No other issue was pressed before this Court. As it is, ground of non payment was not even disputed before the Rent Controller.” The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant is not in a position to argue that there is any factual Civil Revision No. 4154 of 2009 -4- **** inaccuracy in the observations aforesaid. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner shall have one year time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned subject to payment of rent regularly. The arrears of rent shall be paid by the petitioner within three months from today. April 19, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge