The landlord's right to seek ejectment based on personal necessity is not dependent on the definition of 'family' as used in the Act.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This is tenants petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the land-lady respondent who has retired from the Education Department on 31.5.1999 require two shops under the tenant-petitioner for her personal use and occupation. No evidence has been brought on record showing that the landlady-respondent is having any other building in her possession in the urban area concerned. It has also been concurrently found that there are two shops between the street in the site plan Ex.P1 and on the remaining portion of the building the landlady respondent is residing with her family. She has filed two ejectment applications inter-alia on the ground of bona-fide personal necessity asserting that she wanted to open a departmental store in both the shops by removing the intervening wall. It has been further found that husband of the landlady-respondent who is without any work would also support her in the business. She has been found to be healthy enough to run the departmental store and her necessity has been found to be bona-fide. The opening of a departmental store in the front portion of the house has also been found to be convenient for her. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Janak Dulari Khosla V/s. Jaswinder Singh and Ors., 2003(2) R.C.R. 2.

2. The argument of the tenant-petitioner that her son is already running a shop has been rejected on the ground that she cannot force her son to provide a shop to her to start the business as she is legally entitled to start her own business in her own right and in her own property. The other argument also failed which was to the effect that the intervening wall between the two shops could not be removed as it was a load baring wall. It has been observed that in the modern time, support to batten can be given by constructing cemented beam by placing girder and such a course could be conveniently adopted by the land-lady as there is no chaubar (room on the building in question) and the roof can be relaid as the roof is made of battens.

3. Shri Amarjit Markan, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that son of the landlady respondent has acquired additional property during the pendency of the ejectment petition and to that effect an application before the Rent Controller was filed. It has been emphasised that subsequent events could always be taken into consideration by the Courts. However, the afore-mentioned application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller on 28.8.2003. According to the learned counsel the son who has acquired additional property in the shape of shops away from the demised shops has been living in the joint family and therefore would be covered by the expression family. The learned counsel has insisted that once the property has been acquired by a member of the family then it is required to be taken into consideration by the Courts in order to determine the personal necessity of the landlord. He has urged that if the afore-mentioned course is not followed then it would result into unfair treatment of the tenant and the need of the landlord could not be considered bona-fide. According to the learned counsel it would not be a case of need but of greed. In support of his submission the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of T. Sivasubramaniam and Ors. V/s. Kasinath Pujari and Ors., (1999)7 S.C.C .275 and Kedar Nath Agarwal and Anr. V/s. Dhanraji Devi by LRs. and Anr., (2004)8 S.C.C. 76.

4. After hearing the learned counsel at some length I regret my inability to accept his submissions because a glance on the provision dealing with the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal necessity would show that the landlord could apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant to put him/her in possession of the building