The central legal point established in the judgment is the genuine need of the landlord for personal occupation as a valid ground for eviction.

A.L.Bahri, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the tenant against the order of the Appellate Authority, Amritsar, dated May 13, 1991, whereby her appeal filed against the order of the Rent Controller was dismissed. The Rent Controller vide order dated December 14, 1988, allowed the application filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, directing eviction of the present petitioner from the house in dispute.

2. The ejectment of the tenant/petitioner was claimed on two grounds, firstly that the tenant was in arrears of rent and secondly that the house in dispute was required by the landlady for her own use and occupation. The ground of arrears of rent is no more available to the landlady as on the first date of hearing, the arrears along with cost and interest were paid. Since the ground of ejectment of personal necessity was disputed, the following issues were framed :-

1) Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment from the demised premises on the grounds mentioned in para 2 of the petition ?

2) Relief.

3. Both the authorities below came to the conclusion that the landlady bona fide required the premises for her own use and occupation. Her family consisted on herself, her husband and three sons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the basis of ejectment application was the notice, purported to have been issued by M.E.S. authorities directing husband of the landlady to vacate the premises in his own possession. No objection was raised by the tenant when this document was admitted into evidence. Therefore, subsequently it could not be argued that the notice was wrongly exhibited. Be that as it may, the statements of the witnesses recorded in the case have been perused and I find no ground to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the authorities with respect to bona fide need of the landlady to occupy the premises in dispute. AW 1 Smt. Sarla Devi disposed about the accommodation in their possession consisting of two living rooms, one kitchen and one verandah. She gave details of the family members, as already mentioned above. AW 2 Mohinder Partap deposed about the accommodation in possession of the husband of the landlady, as stated above. The third witness on the subject is AW3 Jeewan Parkash, a neighbour of the husband of landlady, who has also give the same description of the accommodation in possession of the husband of the landlady. Cross-examination conducted on those witnesses does not throw any doubt about their veracity. Vidya Wati, the tenant, appeared as RW. 2. She did not state any thing about the accommodation in possession of the husband of the landlady, which are M.E.S. quarters or with respect to the members of family of the landlady, as stated above. Thus, it would appear that the family of five members of the landlady is in occupation of two living rooms, one kitchen and one bath room. One of the sons of the landlady is a Government servant and of marriageable age, as stated by her. Other son was a student of 12th Class. When grown up children and there in the family, obviously they would need more accommodation. Two living rooms for five members of the family was rightly held to be inadequate accommodation with the landlady. Her statement that she wanted to shift to the premises in dispute along with her family members cannot be said to be mala fide. Affirming the finding of the authorities below, it is held that the order of ejectment was rightly passed in the facts of the present case. Revision dismissed.