Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Gian Chand & anr. v. Balbir Chand - CR-2819-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3240 (17 May 2006)

Civil Revision No.2819 of 2006 -: 1 :-


Civil Revision No.2819 of 2006

Date of decision: May 22, 2006.

Gian Chand & anr.



Balbir Chand


Present: Shri K.S. Rekhi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri S.K. Chopra, Advocate for the caveator-respondent.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

This revision petition is preferred by the tenant against whom order of ejectment, dated 16.4.2002, passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority vide its impugned judgment 24.3.2006.

The petitioners' ejectment was sought, inter-alia, on the grounds that:- (i) they had not paid or tendered the arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.1990; (ii) the demised premises is bona fidely required by the respondent-landlord for his newly married son; (iii) petitioner No.2, namely, wife of petitioner no.1 is causing nuisance to petitioner No.1 as well as other occupants of the building and the neighbours; and (iv) petitioner no.1 has ceased to occupy the building continuously for a period of four months before the filing of the ejectment petition.

Both the courts, on a consideration of the evidence on record, Civil Revision No.2819 of 2006 -: 2 :-

have concurred that the demised premises is required by the respondent- landlord for his personal necessity, namely, for the family of his newly married son, who is posted in Jammu but whose family is living at Amritsar.

The courts have also held in favour of the landlord that the monthly rent of the building was Rs.300/- per month and not Rs.50/-, as claimed by the petitioners. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court.

Assailing the impugned ejectment orders, Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that neither the premises is required for bona fide personal necessity nor the mandatory ingredients in relation to this plea have been pleaded or proved by the respondent-landlord. It is contended that the respondent-landlord in his cross examination has admitted that there are other residential premises owned by him in the urban area of Amritsar and some of which were vacated by the tenants but have been again rented out by him to other tenants. It is, thus, contended that had there been a bona fide personal necessity for his married son, the respondent-landlord would not have rented out those premises which fell vacant and were available for such use. Secondly, learned counsel contends that, in terms of section 13(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short the Act), a landlord can seek ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity only by pleading and proving that:- (a) he requires the premises for his own occupation; (b) he has not got any other building in the urban area concerned; and (c) he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in the said urban area.

Relying upon the contents of the ejectment petition, a copy of which has placed on record as Annexure P-4, Learned Counsel for the Civil Revision No.2819 of 2006 -: 3 :-

petitioners points out that in para 2(2) of the said ejectment petition, the respondent-landlord has averred that the premises is required for his married son and that "his son" has "not vacated any other accommodation in the urban area of Amritsar without any sufficient cause". It is contended that as per the requirements of the Act, it was imperative upon the respondent to specifically aver that he himself had not vacated a residential premises in the urban area of Amritsar without any sufficient cause.

After hearing Learned Counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.

As far as the first contention is concerned, the courts below have observed, and rightly so, that the petitioners have not led any evidence to show that any residential premises owned by the respondent was vacated and/or again rented out by him after the marriage of his son. There is overwhelming evidence on record to show that the respondent's son is employed at Jammu but his family is residing at Amritsar. The respondent- landlord in his statement has categorically stated that the residential accommodation presently in his occupation is insufficient for him and the family of his married son. In this view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the concurrent finding of fact returned by the courts below.

So far as the second contention, namely, that the respondent has not pleaded and proved requirements of section 13(3)(a, b & c) of the Act, in my view, the contention is totally misplaced. Firstly, it may be referred that in para 2(2) of the ejectment petition, the respondent-landlord has specifically averred that, "the accommodation in the house is utterly insufficient for the residence of the applicant and his married son". He further avers that, "the married son of the applicant is not occupying any Civil Revision No.2819 of 2006 -: 4 :-

other residential building in urban area of Amritsar, except that he is residing with the applicant in the aforesaid house; neither he he has vacated any other residential accommodation in the urban area of Amritsar without any sufficient cause...". It can, thus, be seen that the plea of bona fide personal necessity has been taken by the respondent-landlord keeping in view the requirement of the family of his married son. In this view of the matter, it has been rightly pleaded by him that his son has not vacated any other such like premises. It is well settled that the personal necessity of the family members of a landlord also falls within the ambit of section 13(3) of the Act and he can seek ejectment of a tenant on that count. That being so, the above mentioned averments made in the ejectment petition fully comply with the requirements of the Act.

No other point has been urged.

For the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.

May 22, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.