Civil Revision No. 6875 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6875 of 208 Date of decision : 27.5.2010 Hardev Singh ....Petitioner Versus Surjit Kaur ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. K.S.Boparai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. Civil Misc. No.14435-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Annexure P-8 is taken on record. Civil Revision No.6875 of 2010 A plea filed by the respondent-landlady, on the authority of provisions of Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), to obtain eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the premises under his tenancy came to be allowed by the learned Rent Controller. That order was set aside by a Coordinate Bench (Ranjit Singh, J.) of this Court in Civil Revision No.956 of 2008 filed by the petitioner-tenant. A direction was issued therein that the respondent- Civil Revision No. 6875 of 2008 -2- **** landlady should be afforded an opportunity to enter witness box, as her own witness, and depose to the averment qua personal bonafide necessity. It was her attorney who had earlier appeared at the trial. The Coordinate Bench upheld the grievance of the petitioner-tenant that it is the landlady who had to make a deposition about personal necessity. It was thereafter that the impugned order came to be granted by the learned Rent Controller in appreciation of the statement made by the respondent-landlady. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the plea raised by the respondent-landlord could not have been granted in view of her own averment that she would demolish the tenanted premises and reconstruct the same in view of the fact that it is presently unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was also argued that plea raised by the respondent-landlady for personal bonafide necessity was contradictory to the other facet of the plea made by her to the effect that premises are unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It may be noticed here that, in the course of hearing on 2.3.2010, a plea was raised on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent-landlady having sold off of the tenanted premises in the meantime on the basis of a General Power of Attorney, there could be a valid inference that she had ceased to have any personal bonafide necessity to be in occupation thereof. While noticing the averment in the order dated 2.3.2010, this Court adjourned the Civil Revision No. 6875 of 2008 -3- **** proceedings. The petitioner obtained a number of opportunities for the purpose aforementioned. Ultimately, on 19.5.2010, the Court was informed that if the relevant documentation is not placed on record before the next date of hearing, it will be assumed that the averment made was factually incorrect. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed on record a General Power of Attorney executed by respondent-landlady in favour of Sukh Sagar Patha son of Balbhadar Kumar. The plea raised thereby is that General Power of Attorney aforementioned is, infact, a sale deed whereby respondent-landlady had sold off the tenanted premises to the vendee aforementioned and she had, thus, ceased to have any personal bonafide necessity for being in occupation thereof. The modus operandii of certain quarters in effecting sales of properties under the garb of a General Power of Attorney is not uncommon and cannot be wished away but, at the same time, we cannot be unmindful of the fact that a General Power of Attorney can be a mask and a proper transaction as well. The power of attorney has to be accompanied by certain other documentation as well e.g. a receipt and also an irrevocable will. It is not even an averment on behalf of the petitioner that any such documentation had ever been brought into existence. In that view of things, it cannot be said that the General Power of Attorney aforementioned is, infact, a mask for transaction of sale. It was, then, argued that the respondent-landlady could Civil Revision No. 6875 of 2008 -4- **** not have validly asked for being in occupation of the tenanted premises for use by her relations who would be visiting her only off and on. The plea was validly negatived by the learned Rent Controller by recording a finding that the area presently in occupation of the respondent-landlady has no kitchen. By the very nature of things, a residential dwelling must necessarily have an area where the landlady has a kitchen at her disposal. A landlady cannot validly be told by the tenant to stay off the premises by being told that the accommodation of only two rooms is sufficient for her use, even when she has relatives nearby who could be expected to visit her for purpose of socializing. There is plethora of law in support of the view that adequacy of need projected by the landlady must be presumed to be bonafide unless, of course, rebutted by any strong evidence. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner- tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. May 27, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No. 6875 of 2008 -5- ****