CR No. 390 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No. 390 of 2009 Date of decision January 23 , 2009 Pal Singh and another .......Petitioners Versus Madanjit Kaur and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. **** K. Kannan, J(oral) 1. The landlord's application for eviction of the tenant survived on a consideration of the ground of his requirement of the premises for his own occupation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner who is a tenant urged that the law requires examination of requirement of the landlord from the point of view of the sufficiency of occupation. If it is proved from the record that he had adequate accommodation already with him, the ejectment against the tenant for the personal need of the landlord will not be available to him. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have considered the issue from the position of fact situation that the landlord had placed of the requirement of the premises on a statement in his petition that the premises was required to establish his son's practice as a lawyer, which according to him required separate consultation rooms, rooms for his Clerks, rooms for their clients and and also for study. The specific averments in the petition relating to the requirement of the landlord, it was CR No. 390 of 2009 2 observed by the Appellate Authority, had not been rebutted by the tenant. By implication the Appellate Authority observed that the tenant had conceded to the landlord's requirement and even during the course of arguments it had not been stated by the tenant that the landlord did not require the same. 3. The contention of the learned counsel before me is that the landlord has two storeyed building in a total area of 11680 feet of land and the constructed area was 4277 feet. The tenant was in occupation of an area of 80 sq. feet only. It was not therefore, necessary for the landlord to obtain the property from the occupation of the tenant. To him, the remaining area in the occupation of the landlord is sufficient and the sufficiency and the need had not been probably adverted to by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. I cannot subscribe such an artificial construct of the relevant provisions of the Act. What the law requires is that the landlord, in order to prove his own requirement, shall not be found in occupation of any other residential building in the Urban area and that he ought not to have vacated such a building without sufficient cause. The sufficiency of the area or otherwise are matters which go on appreciation of evidence and findings rendered on that aspect, when specific observations are also made by the lack of pleadings by the tenant rebutting the requirement of the landlord in the manner adverted to by him, conclusively decide the issue in favour of the landlord. 4. There is no scope of interference. The revision petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 23, 2009 archana