Civil Revision No. 2128 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2128 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.4.2010 Ashok Kumar ...Petitioners Versus Soma Rani Mehta ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent S.D.ANAND, J. The respondent-landlady filed a plea for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on an averment of personal necessity. The plea was allowed by the learned Rent Controller. The finding was affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. The petitioner-tenant is in revision against it. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner- tenant that the finding recorded by both the Courts suffers from the vice of incorrect appreciation inasmuch as those findings do not take cognizance of the fact that there is no reason why a Delhi-based family of the land lady would like to shift to Gurdaspur. In that very context, it was argued that the tenanted premises is a shop situated on the outer boundary wall of the residential premises owned by the respondent-land lady and the latter does not necessarily have to Civil Revision No. 2128 of 2008 -2- **** get it vacated even if she wants to reconstruct her house. In an act of resistance, learned counsel for the respondent-land lady argued that this Court ought not to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. Reliance, in support of the advocated view, was placed upon M.S.Zehad Vs. K. Raghvan 1998 (2) RCR 628. It was also argued that the bonafides of the respondent- land lady in desiring to shift to her own house at Gurdaspur cannot be doubted, particularly when the law affords adequate protection to the tenant in case it is found that land lady does not follow up the indicated personal necessity by entering into occupation of the vacated tenanted premises. It was further argued that possession of the tenanted premises has necessarily to be obtained with a view to enable reconstruction of the house whereafter the respondent-land lady would shift over. There is plethora of law on the point that the Court must give it to the landlord to decide where exactly he would like to settle down. In this case, the respondent-land lady made a precise averment that she requires to obtain the possession of the tenanted premises with a view to demolish the same and, thereafter, undertake reconstruction of the entire premises for use by her sons who have since retired from the service. She clarified in the pleadings that her son Amrit Mehta AW-1 had retired from service and he wants to settle with her mother who is putting up at Gurdaspur. There is also a precise averment, in the course of the Civil Revision No. 2128 of 2008 -3- **** petition that the sons and grown up grand children of the respondent-landlord would want to settle down with her. The averment is supported by the testimony of AW-1 Amrit Mehta and has other son namely Yogeshwar Lal Mehta, AW-3, both of whom testified that they would like to reside in the tenanted premises with their mother. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant assailed the above pleadings, and evidence adduced in support thereof, by inviting the attention of this Court to the testimony of AW-1 Amrit Mehta and AW-3- Yogeshwar Lal Mehta wherein they have stated that their female children are married and that their sons have settled abroad. That evidence, the argument proceeded, would go a long way to prove that there is want of bonafides on the part of the respondent-landlady in averring that she requires the premises for use by her grand children as well. The plea deserves to be negatived. The averment appears to be oblivious of the fact that a landlord/land-lady would be justified in raising a claim that the premises owned by her would be required for utilisation when her grand children come home. Insofar as her two sons are concerned, there is evidence supportive of the pleadings that they are inclined to live in the tenanted premises with their mother who is putting up alone other there. It was, then, argued that there are 7-8 rooms at the disposal of the landlady which can safely be said to be sufficient for her use. Civil Revision No. 2128 of 2008 -4- **** I do not find any force in the plea. It is for the landlady to decide how much residential accommodation she requires for her use and occupation which expression also includes the user of the premises by her children/grand children. It is apparent that the tenanted premises is an old construction. Respondent-land lady may be inclined to have larger size of the rooms for utilisation. No fault can, thus, be found with the plea raised by the respondent-land lady that she requires the tenanted premises for her personal bonafide necessity. Even otherwise, this Court would be reluctant to interfere in the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts on the point that the respondent-land-lady requires the tenanted for her bonafide personal necessity. This I say in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in M.S.Zehad's case (supra). 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 two months' time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. April 27 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge