The landlord's genuine need for the premises, as influenced by his age and his wife's health condition, is a crucial factor in determining bona fide requirement under the Act.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This is tenants petition filed under Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, the Act) challenging the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the demised premises are bona fide required by the landlord-respondent for his personal use and occupation because of the old age and illness of the wife of the landlord-respondent. It has also been found that the landlord-respondent is about 70 years of age and on account of his fractured leg in an accident it is difficult for him to continue staying on the first floor. He has also proved the fact that his wife has developed heart problem and climbing stairs by her is not possible. The findings recorded by the Rent Controller on the question of personal necessity which are affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority read as under;-

"24. Now the crucial question thus arises for determination is whether evidence placed on the file by the petitioner is sufficient to hold the personal necessity of the petitioner regarding tenancy premises. Petitioner examined Dr. A.K. Jain as PW1 he categorically deposed that Pushpa Jain wife of Kanwar Sain Jain is under his treatment for the last 1/2 years and he placed medical certificate Ex.P1. She was advised not to climb the stairs of the house."

25. It has come in the evidence of the petitioner as well as respondent that petitioner alongwith his wife is residing on the first floor of the house. Respondent admits in his cross examination that petitioner is residing on the floor and he is not having any residential accommodation on the ground floor. The case of the petitioner is that he requires the ground floor as his wife is suffering from blood pressure and heart problem, xx xx xx xx xx xx xx.

26. Having gone through the contentions raised by both the counsels and after scanning the evidence placed on file by both the parties, this court is of the view that landlord in the circumstances of the present case, bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. His wife is a heart patient and is suffering from hypertension and she has been advised by the doctor to live on the ground floor, therefore, contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner that premises in question is required for bona fide necessity, is having sum substance and tenable."

2. The findings of facts as to whether the demised premises are residential or non-residential, the learned Rent Controller has held that the demised premises is a part of the residential building and even if it was rented out by him for non-residential purpose, the landlord-respondent is entitled to eject the tenant-petitioner for use of building as his residence.

3. Mr. O.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that the demised premises is a hall measuring 60x24 which was let out by the landlord-respondent to the tenant-petitioner vide rent note dated 14.10.1965 Ex. D1 for the purpose of book binding and printing press. According to the leaned counsel the demised premises is not a residential building and therefore, cannot be occupied by the landlord-respondent for his personal use, The learned counsel has also pointed out that there is no evidence showing that the demised premises is a residential building as there is neither any bath room-cum-toilet not any kitchen which are necessary constituents of a residential building. The learned counsel has further argued that another room on the ground floor was lying vacant and that the landlord-respondent was in possession of a building opposite to State Bank of India, Kabari Bazar, Ambala Cantt. The learned counsel emphasised that the Rent Controller has raised an unwarranted presumption that the demised premises was a residential building and its conversion from residential to non-residential was in violation of Section 11 of the Act. The basis of his submission is the purpose for which the building