The landlord's need for personal use and occupation must be a genuine need and not merely an excuse. The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority cannot abdicate their judicial functions and must determine whether the landlord's need is genuine, having regard to the objective conditions and other factors germane to the case.

Madan Mohan Punchhi, J.

1. This is tenants, revision petition so as to challenge the order of Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, confirming that of the Rent Controller Ludhiana, whereby they have been ordered to be evicted from a house situated in the town of Ludhiana at the instance of the landlady.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that Smt. Santosh Kumari Sood is the landlady of the demised premises. She sought eviction of the petitioners from the demised premises on the pleas that the same were unfit and unsafe for human habitations ; were required by her for her personal use and occupation and that the same stood sublet by petitioner No. 1 Ram Lal Sundas to petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 who were no others but the brothers of the father ; all three being the sons of one Faqir Chand. The petitioners admitted the ownership of the landlady. They claimed their father to be the tenant of the building since 1943 and after his death claimed to have continued living therein since then. They denied that the demised premises were unfit or unsafe for human habitation and claimed that this matter had been settled in their favour by the Rent Controller in an earlier petition for the purpose. They also disputed the bonafide requirement of the landlady for personal occupation. The Rent Controller, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues : -

1. Whether respondent No. 1 is a tenant under the applicant ?

2. Whether the building in dispute is unfit and unsafe for human habitation, as alleged ?

3. Whether the applicant bona fide requires the premises in dispute for her personal use and occupation ?

4. Whether the respondent is a statutory tenant, and no notice under Section 106 T. P. Act is necessary ?

5. If issue No. 4 is not proved, whether a valid notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act has been served on the respondent ?

6. Whether any finding has been earlier given by the Court of Shri Prem Sagar, Rent Controller, Ludhiana, regarding the ground of unsafety and unfitness of the disputed premises for human habitation ? If so, its effect ?

7. Relief.

3. Finding under issue No. 1, was that Ram Lal Sunda, petitioner No. 1, was the respondents tenant while his brothers living with him were mere licensees. Under issue No. 2, it was decided that the building was not unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Under issue No. 3, the finding went in favour of the landlady as her bonafide requirement for personal use and occupation stood established. Out of the remaining issues, issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the tenants and issues No. 5 and 6 in favour of the landlady. Thus primarily on finding on issue No. 3, the order of eviction was passed which was affirmed on appeal by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, though challenge was made in appeal to issues No. 1, 5 and 6 as well.

4. During the course of the appeal, the landlady was permitted an amendment in her pleadings so as to add that she was occupying the first floor of another building within the Municipal limits of Ludhiana but the same was inconvenient for her living and that she had not vacated any other premises within the municipal limits of Ludhiana after the commencement of the Act. This gave rise to the framing of additional issue No. 3A. "Whether the applicant has no other residential house and has not vacated any such house. If so to what effect ?"

5. The report called for from the Rent Controller returned the finding thereon that the landlady had another residential house, namely B-II/1851, and had vacated the premises a commercial concern, without sufficient cause, after the Act came into force. This finding was challenged in appeal by the landlady before the Appellate Authority but the same was dismissed in limine, since the main decision of the Rent Controller had remained in her favour, though subject to appeal. The appeal of the tenants, as said before, was dismissed by the reversal of finding under the newly issue No. 3-A, as well as the co