Civil Revision No. 1955 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1955 of 2008 Date of decision : 18.1.2010 Kanta Rani ....Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Ms. Shweta Bawa, Advocate for Mr. Sushma Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S,Gill, Advocate for the respondent S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-land lady field an ejectment petition against the respondent-tenant to obtain ejectment of the latter from the tenanted premises on a plea that she requires it for her own use and occupation and her married daughter who has a handicapped husband to support. Yet another plea raised by the petitioner-land lady in the relevant behalf was the non payment of rent by the respondent-tenant. Learned Rent Controller upheld the plea of personal bonafide necessity raised by the petitioner-land lady. However, the finding was reversed in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority which held that the petitioner-land lady has not been able to prove that she requires the rented premises for her personal bonafide Civil Revision No. 1955 of 2008 -2- **** necessity. The petitioner-land lady is in revision against it. The other points in controversy do not appear to have been raised before the learned Appellate Authority which confined its adjudication to the bonafide necessity of the petitioner. It would be apparent from a perusal of para 3 of the ejectment application that the petitioner had made a precise averment in the course thereof that she purchased the tenanted premises for “daughter, son-in-law, his mother and their children”. Before proceeding to advert to the relevant facts, it would be pertinent to notice here that the tenanted premises initially belonged to Mst. Sarita Kapoor. The married daughter of the petitioner was residing in a portion of the tenanted premises with her family (which included her husband, her mother-in-law and her children). The portion under their tenancy consisted of two rooms, kitchen and one bath room. The accommodation at their disposal was insufficient and therefore, it was for their purpose as well that the petitioner herein made the purchase of the tenanted premises ( “thereafter this property was purchased by the petitioner for her daughter, son-in- law, his mother and their children as the two rooms are not sufficient for them and for petitioner's stay at Jalandhar City.” -underlining for emphasis purposes). The further averment made by the petitioner- land lady, in the context, was that she requires the premises “for her own use and occupation for settling herself and the family of her daughter.” It cannot be disputed that the petitioner also made an averment in the course of the petition that she is a patient of Civil Revision No. 1955 of 2008 -3- **** hypertension, that she visits Jalandhar City to obtain medication for the disease aforementioned and that she has to necessarily stay with her married daughter for 4-5 days in a month. At the same time, she had clarified in para 4 itself that her need for the tenanted premises for self for the purpose of stay for the period she would visit Jalandhar for obtaining medication is different from her requirement to stay over there only with a view to able to look after her married daughter and her family because she (married daughter of the petitioner)hardly gets any time to look after the house hold because she has to run a Beauty Parlour thoughout the day and there also no male member in the family to look after them. (“She oftenly visit at Jalandhar City for her medication and she used to live with her daughter in her premises for near about 4-5 days in a month, which is quite difficult for her and moreover except the son-in- law of the petitioner who is a handicap person there is no other male member in the family of the petitioner's daughter as the petitioner's daughter having one elder daughter aged about 18 years, another daughter aged about 15 years and a younger son aged about 05 years and petitioner's daughter is always busy in her Beauty Parlour to make their family basic needs, because all the family needs depends upon her as there is nobody to care about her children. As the petitioner has decided to shift at Jalandhar City to reside with her daughter and to take care of her children and her son-in-law and she also feels that it is much better for her medication purpose.”) Learned Appellate authority restricted the appreciation of evidence to the averments made by the petitioner-land lady for her Civil Revision No. 1955 of 2008 -4- **** requirement of the premises only for the period she would have to compulsively visit to obtain medication. That manner of appreciation cannot be upheld. If the petitioner had made an averment for her requirement on the above noticed premises on the one hand, she had also simultaneously clarified that she would require the tenanted premises to put up with the family of her married daughter in order to be able to look after her and other members of her family including her handicapped husband. Though the learned Appellate Authority did concede that the petitioner-land lady is the best judge of requirement for self, it was held that the requirement aforementioned could be upheld only if the pertains to a family member dependent upon the landlady. It was also held by the Appellate Authority that the married daughter of the petitioner-land lady could not be treated to be dependent upon her. The law cannot be allowed to accept a plea reflective of a dogmatic character. It is evolution of law which is crux of foundational premise of rent Legislation. Here is a case in which the petitioner-land lady has been able to aver and prove that she requires the premises for her bonafide need just in order to be able to look after her married daughter, who has a handicapped husband, and also other members of her in-laws family. A decree for ejectment cannot be validly declined to petitioner-land lady on the above count. Her averment to the effect that she would be thereby enabled to look after the needs of her married daughter cannot be said to be suffering from want of bonafides just because her daughter happens to be married. There is no evidence that the Civil Revision No. 1955 of 2008 -5- **** petitioner-land lady has any other other family member to support or look after. In that view of things, the petitioner-land lady is fully justified in announcing to the Rent Controller that she requires the tenanted premises for her bonafide need to house her married daughter and latter's family comfortably. Insofar as the health status of the husband of the married daughter of the petitioner is concerned, we may advert to the testimony on oath of AW 5-Dr. Shamsher Singh and AW-10 Dr. Rajesh Pasricha. The former proved disability certification Ex. AW5/1 certifying that son-in-law of the petitioner-land lady was suffering from 100% disability. PW-19 is Dr. Rajesh Pasricha who had treated the son-in-law of the petitioner-land lady for the spinal injuries which he came to suffer on account of the injuries sustained in the course of an accident. It is also in his testimony that son-in- law of the petitioner has to compulsively move on a wheel chair. The pleadings raised by the parties have to be interpreted particularly liberally, the adoption of a narrow approach on point of appreciation might result in avoidable injustice. Technicalities cannot be allowed to impede the dispensation of justice in case under the rent legislation. It was, then, argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, that the ejectment plea deserves invalidation as the petitioner-land lady had averred that she requires the premises for use by the mother-in-law of her daughter as well. The plea raised thereby is that the mother-in-law of a married daughter cannot be said to be a dependent member of the family of Civil Revision No. 1955 of 2008 -6- **** the land lady. The plea raised is unacceptable on the face of it. It is not a case where the petitioner-land lady raised a plea that she requires the tenanted premises for use only by the mother-in-law of her married daughter. Even otherwise, if the mother-in-law of her daughter is putting up with her handicapped son, there is nothing unnatural on the part of the petitioner-land lady in categorically indicating that the person for whose use she requires tenanted premises include her married daughter, her handicapped husband, her mother in law and her children aged 18, 15 and 5 years respectively ( i.e. grand children of the petitioner-land lady ). In the light of foregoing discussion, it is apparent that the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller deserves to be restored and reversal thereof by the learned Appellate Authority deserves to be set aside. It is so ordered accordingly. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 7.2.2008 granted by the learned Appellate Authority shall stand set aside; while order dated 21.8.2006 passed by learned Rent Controller shall stand restored. However, the respondent -tenant is given one month time from today to vacate the premises under reference. January 18, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE