A landlord can evict a tenant on the ground of bona fide personal requirement if the landlord establishes a genuine need for the premises due to medical or other compelling circumstances, as provided under Section 13(1)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

Prem Chand Jain, J.

1. Inder Singh Sabharwal has filed this petition against the judgment and order of the learned additional Appellate Authority Chandigarh under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 8th of November, 1977 by which the appeal filed by the respondent- tenant against the order of learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated 1st of March, 1977, by which her ejectment bad been ordered, was allowed.

2. The petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is a tenant of the ground floor under him. On 1st of May, 1972, the ground floor of House No. 523 Sector, 8-B, Chandigarh, comprising four bed-rooms, three bathrooms with latrines, dining, drawing, kitchen, four store rooms and open verandahs on both sides, fitted with five celling fans, was rented out at Rs. 550/- per month exclusive of water and electricity charges payable in advance by 10th of each month. On 4th of October, 1975, the petitioner filed an application under section 13 of the Act for the eviction of the respondent on the ground that he bona fide required the premises in question for his personal use and occupation, that his wife Smt. Pritam Kaur suffering from hypertension with cardiac asthma and had been advised to avoid ascending the stairs as it was likely to aggravate her trouble, that Smt. Arjan Devi mother of the petitioner aged about 85 years, who is an old case of fracture of need of femur and malunited fractures of the upper and tibia with osteo arthritic charges in knee joint in her right lower limb, had been advised to avoid excessive physical strain like walking long distances and climbing of stairs and that in order to avoid exposure to risk, of aggravating their troubles by continuing to reside on the first floor of his house in dispute, at present, in his occupation, he wants to live with them in the premises in question on the ground floor. The petitioner requested the respondent to vacate the premises but she did not do so with the result that a notice dated 12th of September, 1975 was served upon her terminating her tenancy. As the respondent did not vacate the house even after the receipt of the notice, the petition for ejectment on the ground of bona fide personal requirement was filed.

3. The ejectment petition was contested by the respondent inter alia on the grounds that the premises in dispute were let out to her for carrying on her profession as a Beautician, that she has been using the premises for both, residence and carrying on her said profession from the very inception of her tenancy, that as such the premises in dispute was not residential building and she could not be out evicted therefrom on the ground of personal necessity, that the petitioner did not need the premises in question bona fide for his own personal use, that, the mother and wife of the petitioner were enjoying good health and moved about freely and were engaged in normal physical activities, and that the application had been filed mala fide in order to increase the rent as the petitioner was in the habit of making demands for increasing rent every now and then. About the demand of rent, it has been stated that during first half of the year 1975, he threatened her with eviction, whereupon she agreed to surrender to him the possession of a garage and a servant quarter which previously formed part of the demised premises. That the portion was immediately let out by the petitioner to the management of St. Marys School at Rs. 200/- per month, that after a short interval, the respondent was forced to increase the rent to Rs. 600/- per month, that the greed of the petitioner was not satisfied as he started demanding from the respondent an increase in rent so as to it raise to Rs. 800/- per month and that as she did not agree to this increase, the notice terminating the tenancy was served and the eviction application was filed.

4. The petitioner chose to the rejoinder to the written statement in w