Urmila Devi v. Kuldip Kaur

Present: Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Arti Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. ... Alok Singh, J. 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 order dated 11.5.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority/ADJ, Amritsar as well as the order dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, thereby allowing eviction petition of the landlady for ejectment of the petitioner – tenant from the property mentioned in the eviction petition. CR No.5453 of 2009 2 In nutshell, respondent – landlady has filed ejectment petition against the tenant on the ground that the tenant has neither paid nor rendered arrears of rent from August, 2001 to May, 2002 and hence, tenant is in arrears of rent till the filing of the present petition; tenant has changed the user of the residential building and converted one room into office for her son; tenant is using the tenanted premises for the purpose other than the purpose for which the same was let out; landlady requires bonafidely the demise premises for her own use and occupation for residential purposes; landlady is residing with her son and is having strained relations with her daughter-in-law and wants to live separately in the demise premises. Tenant – petitioner herein refuted the contention of the landlady by way of filing reply. The Rent Controller framed following three issues: - “1. Whether the tender made by the respondent is a short and invalid ? OPA

2. Whether the respondent has changed the user of the demise premises other than for the purpose for which it was let out to the respondent ? OPA

3. Whether the petitioner requires the demise promises for her bonafide necessity ? OPA The Rent Controller vide impugned judgement dated

30.112007 decided Issue No.1 in favour of the tenant and found that the tenant is not in arrears of rent. The Rent Controller again decided Issue No.2 in favour of the tenant and observed that the landlady failed to prove that the tenant is using the demise premises for the purpose other than the purpose for which it was let out. However, the Rent Controller while CR No.5453 of 2009 3 deciding Issue No.3 on the question of bonafide need of the landlady, found favour with the landlady and has held that the landlady requires the premises in question for her personal use and occupation since she is having strained relations with her daughter-in-law, hence, has every right to shift in her own property. The Rent Controller having found the bonafide and genuine need of the landlady, allowed the eviction petition. Feeling aggrieved from the judgement of the Rent Controller, statutory appeal was preferred by the tenant, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide judgement dated 11.5.2009. The Appellate Authority also recorded concurrent finding of fact on the bonafide need of the landlady and held that since the landlady is having strained relations with her daughter-in-law, she has every right to live in her own house and her need cannot be said to be mere desire and seems to be bonafide and genuine. Feeling aggrieved from both the orders, tenant has preferred present petition under Section 15(5) of the 1949 Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner – tenant argued that now the landlady is about 70 years of age and she is residing with her son and daughter-in-law for the last about two decades in the house in occupation of her son and she has no need to shift to her own house on account of the fact that she is having strained relations with her daughter-in-law. Learned counsel for the respondent – landlady vehemently argued that in the present case, concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by both the Courts below to the effect that the landlady has strained relations with her daughter-in-law and hence her need is bonafide and genuine, hence in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the 1949 CR No.5453 of 2009 4 Act, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. In the present case, the need setup by the landlady is that she is residing with her son in House No.507, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar, who is in government job and now she is having strained relations with her daughter-in-law. She is a patient of hypertension and wants to live in peaceful manner without any tension in Amritsar. She wants to reside in her own house in Amritsar so that she can also spend time in the holy city of Amritsar. She also desires that she wishes to visit Golden Temple everyday and to do voluntary service at Golden Temple so that she can spend her life by doing religious activities in the holy city of Gurus. In the present matter, tenant – petitioner is not suggesting that the landlady is having any other vacant accommodation in the city of Amritsar. Once landlady bonafidely desires to live peacefully in her own house that too to do religious activities in Golden Temple and to keep herself cool without tension, away from her daughter-in-law with whom she is having strained relations, her need seems to be genuine and bonafide. In the opinion of this Court, tenant cannot dictate the landlady to remain with the son and daughter-in-law in the city of Jalandhar and not to shift to Amritsar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of N. Eswari Vs. K. Swarajya Lakshmi, 2009(9) SCC 678 and argues that in the aforesaid case, landlady was also of 70 years of age and she wanted to shift away from her son’s house, which was not considered to be bonafide by the Supreme Court. The Apex Court in N. Eswari’s case (supra), in paragraph 14 of CR No.5453 of 2009 5 the judgement has observed as under: - “14. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had considered the entire materials on record and the arguments adduced by the parties and came to a finding that the requirement of the landlady/respondent was not genuine and there was no need to leave her permanent house at Hyderabad, where she has been living, to come over to Vijayawada to stay alone at the age of 70 years without there being anyone to look after her. This finding of fact arrived at by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, in our view, cannot be said to be perverse and arbitrary.” In the opinion of this Court, the Apex Court in view of concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below has come to the conclusion that need of the landlady is not genuine. In the case before the Apex Court, both the Courts below as well as the Apex Court found the need of the landlady as mere desire, while in the case in hand, both the Courts below have found need of the landlady as genuine and bonafide. In the opinion of this Court, the ratio of a particular case should be seen in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. There cannot be any rigid and one formula to say as to whether alleged need is a bonafide need or a mere desire. Each case is decided on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the case in hand, both the Courts below have found need of the landlady as genuine and bonafide. This Court is also of the opinion that in view of the fact that the landlady is having strained relations with her daughter-in-law and she wants to pass time by keeping herself busy in religious activities in Golden Temple, hence, she should not be compelled to CR No.5453 of 2009 6 stay at Jalandhar with her son and daughter-in-law and lose her mental cool and mental peace. In view of the above, no interference is called for with the impugned orders. Dismissed. However, two months' time is granted to the tenant to handover vacant and peaceful possession to the landlady. No costs.

06.08.2010 sk. ( Alok Singh ) Judge