The landlord's requirement for personal occupation under section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, is not limited to absolute necessity and includes a genuine intention to occupy the premises for comfort and convenience, taking into account social customs, conventions, and habits.

1. This revision was heard by me initially on 11-9-1963 and I called for a report of the Rent Controller with the comments of the appellate authority through whom the report was called because in view of Sant Ram Des raj V/s. Karam Chand 64, Pun LR 758: (AIR 1963 Punj 1 (FB) it was considered necessary to decide issue No. 5 as well. The Full Bench decision in the case of Sant Ram Des Raj 64 Pun LR 758: (AIR 1963 Punj 1(FB)) overruled the decision of Division Bench in Ramakrishna Das V/s. Gordhan Das 62 Pun LR 670. The case has now been placed before me after receipt of the reports of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority.

2. The controversy arises out of proceedings for ejectment of the respondents Sunder Das and Kishan Chand initiated by Smt. Subhadran Devi, widow of Dr. Jagan Nath Sood, Smt Dalkashna Devi and Smt, Krishna Kumari, daughters of the deceased and Jathiar Nath and Devinadar Nath sons of the deceased. Various grounds in support of the prayer for ejectment were raised including (j) subletting of a part of the building (ii) nuisance (iii) Sundar Das having been bona fide required for the personal occupation of the petitioners and (iv) the building in dispute having been bona fide required for the personal occupation of he petitioners and (v) the respondents having impaired the value and utility of the building.

The petition was resisted and the Rent Controller formed the following issues during the course of trial: 1. Whether the respondents have sublet a part of the building?

2. Whether Sundar Das left this building more than four months ago? I f soits effect?

3. Whether the respondents are a nuisance to the applicants and the neighbours?

4. Whether the Chaubara is also a part of the tenancy premises? If so what is the effect of in non-inclusion in the application ?

5. Whether the applicants require the building bona fide for their personal occupation?

6. Whether the responds have impaired the value and utility of the building?

The first issue was found by the Resent Controller against the petitioner; under the second issue, it was conceded that Sunder Das had vacant the premises long ago and Kishan Chand was in its possession as a tenant; issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the petitioners and under issue No. 4 it was held that the Chaubara did not constitute a part of the tenancy premises; issue No. 5 following the Bench decision of this Court in Ram Kishan Dasss case, 62 Pun LR 670 was decided against the petitioners and issue No. 6 was not pressed. On the findings on issue No. 3 ejectment order was passed.

3. An appeal having been taken to the appellate authority the controversy was stated to be confined to issue No. 3 only. The decision on this issue was reversed by the learned District Judge acting a s appellate authority with the result that the tenants appeal was allowed and the landlords petition for ejectment dismissed.

4. On further revision in this Court as already observer the decision in Ram Kishan Dasss case 62 Pun Lr 670 having been overruled by a Full Bench a report of the Controller and the appellate authority on issue No. 5 was called. On behalf of the petitioner decision on issue No. 3 was also assailed before me and in support of the challenge reliance was placed on Ram Chander V/s. Kidar Nath etc. 56 Pun Lr 18: (AIR 1954 Punj 135). On behalf of the respondents however reliance was placed on Raj Kumar V/s. Mangu Ram 65 Pun LR Punj 727 both decision having been given by the learned Chief Justice. Without deciding the respective cotention son issue No, 3 I considered it proper at the stage to call for a report on issue No. 5.

5. The learned Rent Controlled and the learned appellate authority have both concurred in reporting that the petitioners do not require the demised premises bona fide for their personal occupation. The report has, however, been challenged by the petitioner and it has been stressed that the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority have approached