1. This is tenant's petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but was allowed in appeal.
2. The premises, in dispute, are a residential house, No. 142, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh. consisting of two bed rooms, drawing-cum-dining room garage, Kitchen etc. which was rented out to the tenant in Jan. 1974, at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Earlier also, the building was on rent with another tenant. The landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant primarily on the ground that he bona fide required the same for his own use and occupation and that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility thereof by construction a pucca room in a corner of the building adjacent to house No. 143. Sector 28-A, Chandigarh. It was pleaded that the landlord was residing with his mother in house No. 2134, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh, which belonged to has brother. On account of the strained relations between his wife and his mother, it had become necessary for him to shift from the said house to his won house. It was also started that he had two sons one of whom was studying in ninth class and the other was studying in second class. It was also pleaded that he was not occupying any other residential building, nor had he vacated any since the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, in the urban area concerned. In the written statement it was pleaded by the tenant that initially, the rate of statement it was pleaded by the tenant that initially the rate of rent was Rs. 475-per month. In the year 1976, it was increased to Rs. 500/- per month. It was denied that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. According to the tenant, the house in which the landlord was presently residing was fairly big and was sufficient to meet his requirement. The other allegations made by the landlord were also controverted. The learned Rent Controller negatived both the grounds of ejectment pleaded by the landlord and consequently dismissed the ejectment application. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord. The finding on the other issue viz., as to whether the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises, negativing the claim of the landlord, was maintained. As a result, the eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the requirement of the landlord was not at all bona fide. The dispute between the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-law was a made up story. The landlord has been occupying the house belonging to his brother and mother since the year 1968 which accommodation with him was sufficient for his purposes. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the finding of the learned Rent Controller, in this behalf, was correct which has been reversed in appeal on surmises and conjectures. It was also contended that the landlord did not come to the Court with clean hands because in the ejectment application he had stated that the house which he was occupying belonged to his brother whereas in his statement in the Court, he stated that it belonged to his mother and brother. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Mehar Chand v. Tilak Raj (1982) 1 Rent LR 306: (AIR 1982 Punj & Har 144).
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.
5. After discussing the entire evidence, the Appellate Authority has given a firm finding that it was of considered opinion that the landlord was entitled to seek the eviction of the tenant and that his need was bona fide. Primarily, it being a finding of fact could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. Besides, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said finding as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. The contention raised on behalf of the tenant that the landlord could continue to live with his mother in the present premises because he had been living there since 1968, is not tenable. Admittedly, the landlord has no other house in the urban area concerned except the demised premises. At present, he is occupying the house belonging to his brother and the mother. Thus, his occupation there is not as a matter of right, but as a licensee. In case, the landlord does not want to continue to remain with his mother in the present premises because of the alleged strained relations between his mother and his wife, then he could not be forced to continue to live there. Under the circumstances, the requirement of the landlord to occupy his own house is most bona fide and there is nothing on the record to doubt the same. It is not for the tenant to suggest that the landlord should continue to remain in the premises with his mother even if the relation between his wife and his mother are not cordial. If earlier, they had been living together, it did not mean that the landlord must continue as such in spite of his changed circumstances. It has been rightly observed by the Appellate Authority in the judgment under revision,--
'It is common knowledge that the circumstances in which a human being is placed at a given point of time do not remain uniform for all times to come'.
It is also significant that in the present case, the tenant himself produced Shrimati Pushpa Wati, the wife of the landlord as R.W. 6 and Shrimati Parkash Wati, the mother of the landlord as R. W. 7 R.W. 6 deposed that she had been separated form her mother-in-law because they could not live together on account of differences. R. W. 7 corroborated her testimony while deposing that the relations between her and her daughter-in-law were strained on account of small matters although there were no serious differences. Thus, the tenants evidence itself establishes the existence of the strained relations between the landlord's mother and his wife. On that basis, the Appellate Authority rightly found that under the circumstances, the landlord was justified in pressing for the eviction of the tenant from the house in dispute. In any case, as observed earlier, the landlord who was living with his mother as a licensee could not be forced to continue there for ever. He constructed the house, in dispute, for his comfortable living. The house, in question, is the only house owned by the landlords. In case if he wants to get this house vacated because of the changed circumstances, it could not be successfully argued that his requirement of the demised premises was not bona fide.
6. In this view of the matter, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed two months time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and the advance rent for two months are deposited with the Rent controller within a fortnight and also an undertaking, in writing that the tenant will vacate the demised premises and hand over the vacate the demised premises and hand over the vacant possession thereof to the landlord after the expiry of the aforesaid period of two months is filed within a fortnight also with the Rent-Controller.
7. Revision dismissed.