Civil Revision No.2099 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2099 of 2009 Date of decision : 6 .1.2010 Kashmiri Lal .....Petitioner Versus Rajinder Kumar and another ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. N.S.Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. The landlords (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') launched proceedings for ejectment of the tenants (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') from the premises detailed in site plan (exhibited as A- 1 before the learned Rent Controller-hereinafter referred to as 'the premises'). Eviction was applied for on an averment that the premises were required for his own use and occupation. The further averment made in the context, on the statutory format, was that he is not in possession of any other residential building in the urban area concerned and he has not vacated any such residential building without sufficient cause after commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners contested the ejectment request by averring that the respondent is not in need of the premises for his own use and occupation inasmuch as he is presently residing in a house belonging to his mother which (house) is also shared by another brother of his who Civil Revision No.2099 of 2009 -2- **** resides over there with his family. The learned Rent Controller recorded a finding of fact that the occupation of portion of present accommodation (which otherwise belongs to the mother of the respondent) is as a licencee and that the respondent is entitled to occupy the premises in his own right. That finding of fact was affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. The following are the relevant observations made by the learned Ist Appellate Authority in the context:- “Applicant is presently living in his ancestral house with his mother. So he is living as lincencee with her. Applicant Rajinder Kumar has got his wife, two major sons and daughter aged 16 years and they are residing on the first floor of the house No.34(P) Street No.1, Ferozepur Cantt. This house is owned by his mother. He had another brother Karam Chand, who had died leaving behind his widow Vidya Devi, two daughters and a son. After the death of Karam Chand, his brother, his widow Vidya Devi has contracted Kareva marriage with Mohinder Kumar, the another brother of Rajinder Kumar applicant/landlord. So Mohinder Kumar along with his wife and children are residing on the ground floor of the house of Tulsi Devi, his mother. So the learned Rent Controller, has rightly found that the applicant requires demised premises for his personal necessity, which is bona fide, because it is not possible for the applicant/landlord to live with his family in the house of his mother. The learned Rent Controller has also found that applicant Rajinder Kumar does not own any house at Ferozepur Cantt.” The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, is Civil Revision No.2099 of 2009 -3- **** not in a position to argue that there is any factual inaccuracy in the above observation made by the learned Appellate Authority. However, the only plea raised by the learned counsel is that the proven fact of respondent being in occupation of adequate accommodation in the house belonging to none else or other than his own mother is sufficient to disable from raising a plea that he requires the premises for his own use and occupation. The Rent Legislation would allow a landlord to require a tenant to vacate the tenanted premises if the former requires the same for his own use and occupation. The only two statutory riders in the context are that the landlord must certify that he does not possess any other residential building in the urban area concerned and he has not vacated any such residential building without sufficient cause after commencement of the Act. Concededly, the fact based finding is that on the first floor two room accommodation, where the respondent is presently putting up (alongwith his wife, two major sons and a daughter), is a part of the house belonging to his mother. The respondent cannot claim entitlement to continue in occupation thereof in his own right. He is, obviously, a licencee in possession of a part of that accommodation. It would be against all cannons of appreciation of statutory law to hold that a person in occupation of premises as a licencee may be denied locus to claim possession of residential premises owned by him. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has not been able to invite the attention of this Court to any law which could be supportive of the plea advocated on behalf of the petitioner. Though the question of the respondent being in possession of adequate accommodation (as a licencee) does not, at all, appear to be Civil Revision No.2099 of 2009 -4- **** relevant in the context, it may be noticed on point of fact that there is material obtaining on the file to prove that family of the petitioner consists of his wife, two major sons and a daughter. The further proven fact is that the family is in possession of a two room accommodation. That accommodation cannot, at all, be said to be adequate for the family of the respondent. Thus, examined from any angle, the respondent is entitled to be in occupation of the premises for his own use and occupation. There being no justification to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority, affirming the finding of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller in the context, this petition is ordered to be dismissed in limine. January 6, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No