CR No.3687 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3687 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:03.06.2011. Vinod Kumar Vij ...Petitioner Versus J.S.Chatha ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kushagar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate, for the respondent/caveator. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenant has come up in revision against order of the learned Appellate Authority by which order of the learned Rent Controller has been reversed on the issue of bona fide necessity of the landlord. In brief, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] in respect of booth No.342, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh, inter alia, on the ground of personal necessity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had retired in 1994, whereas his wife had retired in 1996. Both his son and daughter had already been settled abroad in the year 1996. The ground of personal necessity was available to the landlord in the year 1996, but he did not file any eviction petition on this ground, rather he filed a suit for eviction of the tenant in the year 2004 on the basis of a notification by which the Act was not made applicable but before filing the said suit, even in the legal notice of termination of tenancy, he did not aver about his personal necessity. After the CR No.3687 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - ***** cancellation of the said notification, he has filed the present eviction petition in the year 2007 on the ground of personal necessity. It is submitted that in fact the bona fide personal necessity does not exist and it is only a pretext for seeking eviction of the tenant. He has also submitted that there is a vast difference between the “requirement” & “desire” and “need” & “greed”. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent/caveator has submitted that no doubt that the landlord had retired from service in the year 1994, his wife had retired in the year 1996 and his children were settled in the United States of America in the year 1996, but his son got married in the year 2004 and after settling his children in life, he filed a suit in the year 2004 for seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground easily available to him by terminating the tenancy as it was the easiest way at that time to regain possession, but after cancellation of the notification on the basis of which the suit was filed in the year 2004, immediately eviction petition was filed under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of personal necessity. It is submitted that the landlord, after his retirement, is not doing anything and in order to keep himself busy in life, he requires some vocation and for that matter he had asked for possession of the demised premises where he could start his business which would serve his dual purpose of keeping him busy throughout the day and also would help him in augmenting his income. He has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 1998(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 533 to contend that the tenant is not to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. He further relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Prativa Devi v. T.V.Krishnan, 1987 (2) R.C.R.(Rent) 580 in which the landlady was 70 years of age and the High Court had dismissed her application on the ground that it is highly improbable that she would shift to the premises in dispute and establish a separate dwelling. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the High Court was in error in laying that the test is availability of alternative accommodation and not the legal right to such occupation in adjudging the bona fide requirement. Similarly, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ragavendra Kumar CR No.3687 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - ***** v. Firm Prem Machinery and Co., 2000(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 135 in which it was held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and has complete freedom in this regard. He has also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors., 2005(8) Supreme Court Cases 252 in which it was held that it is privilege of the landlord to choose the nature and place of the business for which tenant cannot advise him. After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any reason to disturb the order of the learned Appellate Authority because even if the landlord had not filed the petition for sometime after his retirement as he was busy in settling his children in their life but as soon as he found time to settle himself again, he filed the suit on the basis of a notification by which application of the Act was curtailed in which he was not required to plead his bona fide necessity as he was only to give a notice for termination of tenancy under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but as soon as the said notification was cancelled, he filed the eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act alleging his bona fide necessity of the demised premises. In these circumstances, I am not in agreement with the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant that the requirement of the landlord of the demised premises is a mere desire and not the bona fide necessity. Hence, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. June 03, 2011. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE