C.R. No. 1124 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.R. No. 1124 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14 .07.2010 Daljit Singh and others ....Petitioner Versus Joginder Singh and another ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Rekhy, Advocate for the respondents. ... Alok Singh, J.(Oral) Present revision is filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 1949 Act) assailing the judgement dated 4.1.2008 passed by the Appellate Court. Applicants Daljit Singh, Harjit Singh and Gurjit Singh, all real brothers filed eviction petition for ejectment of the respondents from a portion situated on the ground floor forming part of property No.112, Joshi Colony, Amritsar. The case set up by the landlords is that they have purchased property No.112, Joshi Colony, Amritsar vide three registered C.R. No. 1124 of 2008 2 sale-deeds dated 23.2.1993 and they have become owners/landlords thereof and the respondents became their tenant. Landlords required bonafidely the tenanted premises for their own use and occupation. They are not having sufficient accommodation in their hands and are occupying property adjacent to the property in dispute. All the three brothers are married and have grown-up children. Initially case of arrears of rent was also pleaded. Respondents-defendants refuted the claim of the landlords/revisionists and contended that the landlords are having huge constructions in their possession on Plots No.110 and 111 in which there are 12 bedrooms, three drawing and dining rooms, three verandahs, three kitchens, six bathrooms and besides this, landlords are having one residential house in Katra Moti Ram. Hence landlords have absolutely no need of the tenanted portion under the occupation of the respondents – tenants. Respondents are more than 70 years of age and have no other place to go. Landlords were aware of the fact at the time of purchase of the property in dispute on 23.2.1993 that it is in the tenancy of the respondents. Had there been any need to the landlords they would not have purchased the tenanted portion. The Rent Controller having heard both the parties, vide order dated 6.3.2006 allowed the eviction petition of the landlords by observing that the construction in the possession of the landlords over Plots No.110 and 111 is consisting of only five bedrooms, whereas landlords are three brothers, one mother and seven grown-up children. Beside this, they are visited by other near relatives and as per the status of the landlords they need the tenanted portion. Feeling aggrieved from the judgement of the Rent Controller dated 6.3.2006, respondents herein preferred appeal under the 1949 Act. C.R. No. 1124 of 2008 3 The Appellate Court placed great emphasis on one fact that the landlords are having another accommodation at Katra Moti Ram and the accommodation in the hands of the landlords over Plots No.110 and 111 is sufficient, hence need of the landlords is not bonafide rather it seems to be mere desire. Learned counsel for the petitioners – landlords vehemently argued that the building at Katra Moti Ram is not a residential building. In that building, petitioners are running a torch manufacturing factory. It is argued that at the initial stage when the financial status of the petitioners was not good, entire family used to live in one portion at Katra Moti Ram while major portion of the building at Katra Moti Ram was being used for factory purposes. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by the increase of the members of the family and by getting good status in the society, properties No.110 and 111 were changed into big building consisting of five bedrooms and now the status of the petitioners is such that they require more place to accommodate their visitors and near relatives. Moreover, they are now three brothers, three wives, one mother, meaning thereby seven adult members and seven grown-up children. Five bedrooms are not sufficient because each couple would require one room and the each grown-up child would require one separate room. He further stated that in case tenanted premises is made available to the landlords, it would be utilized by the landlords for their family need. Learned counsel for the respondents at the other end stated that if initially family of the petitioners was accommodated in part of the building of Katra Moti Ram then they can still use that building. The further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that C.R. No. 1124 of 2008 4 accommodation in the hands of landlords is sufficient as per their status. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I find that even RW6 and RW12 have stated on oath that building of Katra Moti Ram is not a residential house and is a torch factory of the landlords. In view of this, building situated at Katra Moti Ram cannot be taken into account to find out the bonafide need of the landlords. From the perusal of the record it also seems that now all the landlords are income-tax payee. In the opinion of this Court, landlord is the best judge of his need. Landlord has to judge which building will suit for his requirement. Tenant cannot dictate any term to the landlord to accommodate with his family in accommodation available in the hands of the landlord. Landlord has every right to live in a building of his own choice as per his status in the society. Once it is established by the landlords that besides seven adult members there are seven grown-up children and the building in the hands of the landlords is not sufficient for the existing family members and for the visitors and near relatives as per the status of the landlords then need of the landlords should not be overlooked merely because tenant says that the landlords can accommodate in the accommodation available in the occupation of the landlords. There is a difference between the bonafide need and mere desire. However, to find out as to whether alleged need is a bonafide need or a mere desire, all relevant factors should be kept in mind i.e. total family members, status of the landlords in the society and comforts required by the landlords. Comforts required by the landlords as per the status in the society and bigger place by the landlords as per their status should not be held to be mere desire. Although every need is to be adjudged as per its C.R. No. 1124 of 2008 5 own merits but from the facts available on record, need set up by the landlords seems to be justified and bonafide. In the opinion of this Court, if the trial Court has found the need of the landlords bonafide on the basis of the material available on record after assessing every aspect of the case, then view taken by the Rent Controller should not be lightly disturbed by the Appellate Court merely because two views are possible. Having perused findings recorded by the Rent Controller, this Court is satisfied that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error while finding favour with the landlord’s contention about bonafide need. The judgement impugned passed by the Appellate Court does not stand in the legal scrutiny and is liable to be set aside. Present petition is allowed with costs throughout which is assessed at Rs.25,000/-. Impugned judgement passed by the Appellate Court dated 4.1.2008 is set aside. Judgement passed by Rent Controller dated 6.3.2006 is restored. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, time upto 31.10.2010 is granted to the respondents – tenants to vacate the premises in question subject to the payment of entire rent due and future rent by 7th of each month. It is made clear that if the respondents – tenants do not make payment of the entire rent due within 15 days from today and future rent by the 7th of each month, then eviction order shall be executed forthwith. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 14.07.2010 sk.