Civil Revision No. 6822 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6822 of 2009 Date of decision : 19.2.2010 Bimla Devi ....Petitioner Versus Baldev Singh Bajwa ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The tenant (petitioner herein) has applied for the invalidation of the order dated 21.8.2009 vide which the learned Rent Controller; while allowing an ejectment petition in favour of the respondent-landlord (respondent herein) ordered the ejectment of the former from the tenanted premises. In terms of order dated 27.5.2009 granted by a Coordinate Bench (K. Kannan, J.) of this Court in Civil Revision No.2156 of 2007, the learned Rent Controller had been directed to decide the issue of bonafide requirement of the landlord. It is apparent from the record that the respondent herein is in possession of the ground floor of the premises; the first floor is in possession of a non party; while the second floor portion (a Barsati) constitutes the tenanted premises. The learned Rent Controller upheld the respondent plea for Civil Revision No. 6822 of 2009 -2- **** personal bonafide necessity by observing that the accommodation available with the respondent i.e. ground floor is insufficient to accommodate his family which consists of the respondent himself, his spouse and an adopted son who is otherwise presently overseas. It was also held, in the context, that the tenanted premises is requires for use as a Pooja Room and for accommodating guests. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plea raised in the context of personal bonafide necessity is a pretence inasmuch as the landlord being a senior citizen aged 70 years would not be expected to go to the second floor to offer pooja and to look after his guests. It is plainly on that premise that the validity of the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller was challenged. There is plethora of law on the point that though a landlord cannot be allowed to get away on the basis of mere wish to occupy the tenanted premises, the need of the landlord is essentially to be examined by the Court from the prism of the landlord. It is not that the law would allow the landlord to get hold of the property and, then, put it to a use different from the one for which the ejectment had been applied for. There is adequate provision in the law which can be resorted to by the tenant to have the noose around the neck of the landlord if the above noticed aberration takes place at the hands of the landlord. Even though the adopted child of the respondent herein is overseas, the need for appropriate accommodation for his use cannot be wished away as he would be expected to get back home ultimately. In the Indian societal scenario, there is nothing unnatural for friends and relations to have social visitation inter-se. A landlord owning the tenanted premises would be entitled to have the premises at his disposal to be able Civil Revision No. 6822 of 2009 -3- **** to look after the visiting guests, a reasonable number of whom may be from out station and may opt to stay over night. Apart therefrom, there is nothing perse unnatural on the part of the respondent herein to desire that the tenanted premises would also be used as a Pooja room. It is a matter of common observation that the Pooja room in Indian home would be at a place where prayers can be offered with concentration. There is neither any averment nor any proof of there being anything wrong with the health status of the landlord which would compel him to refrain from going over to the second floor to offer prayers. It was, then, argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the tenanted premises is, infact, a portion which can appropriately be described as Barsati. The plea raised thereby is that it is unnatural on the part of the respondent herein to raise a plea that the tenanted premises shall be used for housing the guests and for the adopted son. It does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner herein to raise that plea. The tenanted premises, on his own showing, is being used by him for the purpose of residence. If the petitioner herein can use the premises for the residential purpose, there is no reason why those rooms cannot be put to the same use by the respondent herein. In the light of the 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. February 19, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE