The main legal point established in the judgment is that the landlord's bona fide need for the premises should be seen from the landlord's perspective, and the landlord is the best judge of their own need, as long as the need is genuine and supported by evidence.

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.

1. The matrix of the facts culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal, of instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that originally, petitioner-Mohinder Kaur widow of Joginder Singh-landlady (hereinafter to be referred as the landlady) filed a petition, invoking the provisions of section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949) (for short the Act) for the ejectment of respondent Balwinder Kumar son of Bihari Lal-tenant (for brevity the tenant) from the demised premises on the grounds of non payment of rent and bonafide necessity.

2. The case set up by the landlady was that the tenant is in arrears of rent of the premises in dispute since 1.6.2002 at the rate of rent of Rs. 1100/- per month without any sufficient cause. It was claimed that she is residing in her house situated on the back side of the demised premises and there is stair case which is on the western side of the disputed premises to go to the first floor of her residential house She is an old lady, suffering from various diseases and she has also suffered attack of paralysis. It is difficult for her to up and down the stairs to go to the residential house. The three feet street which is on the northern side of her house is very narrow one. The landlady wants to use the premises in dispute for ingress and outgress to her house. There is a door on the northern wall of the premises in dispute which opens in her residential portion. She wants to add the premises in dispute in the residential portion, so that the main gate of her house be opened in Bazar Khurd. The need of landlady for premises in dispute is stated to be her basic need.

3. The case of the landlady further proceeds that on the eastern side of the premises in dispute there is her other premises/shop which was on rent and the other tenant vacated it recently. Baljinderpal Singh one of her son is residing with her. The marriage of her grandson Manmit Singh was going to take place within 1/2 month. The fiancee would be wife of Manmit Singh is an architect. Manmit Singh has to do the work of Construction Contractor and he has to open his office in the premises wh ich is on the eastern side of the premises in dispute alongwith his wife who has to run the work of architect. The residential house of the landlady is on the back side of the premises in dispute.

4. It was also claimed that from the street of back side the car owned by the family of the landlady cannot enter. The premises in dispute can also be used for the purpose of parking of car owned by her family. The width of Bazar Khurd is 13 feet. There is no other property and accommodation in her possession except the premises in dispute from where she can make arrangement for ingress and outgress to her house more effectively. The landlady can use the premises in dispute for ingress and out-gress to her by installing a main gate towards Bazar Khurd and joined the same with her residential accommodation. The tenant has not been doing any commercial activity in the premises in dispute, rather he is using the same as godown for store purpose. Thus, the premises in dispute is bonafidely required by her for her own use and occupation.

5. According to the landlady, she repeatedly asked the tenant to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the premises, but in vain despite legal notice, which necessitated her to file the ejectment petition against him. On the basis of aforesaid grounds of nonpayment of rent and personal necessity, the landlady sought to eject the tenant, in the manner indicated here-in-above.

6. The tenant contested the petition and filed the written statement, inter- alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of petition, estoppel and conduct of the landlady. However, the relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties was admitted. The case pleaded by the tenant, in brief, in so far as relevant, was that the shop in dispute was taken on rent by