A landlord is entitled to possession of a portion of the demised premises for personal occupation even if he has let out other portions of the premises to other tenants.

, J.

1. Blatant Mala fide of the tenant is the striking feature of this petition by the landlord seeking possession of the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity.

2. The premises lie unoccupied and locked sans electric connection for about a year now, it appears, since the tenant built his own house in Chandigarh and shifted there. Counsel for the tenant had no explanation to offer why the tenant persists in withholding the possession of these premises from the landlord.

3. The landlord here is the 85 years old Ram Singh whose family consists of his 60 years old son Mohar Singh, his daughter-in-law Sushil Kaur who has been suffering from mental disorder for over 18 years now and their grown-up but unmarried daughter. The demised premises being the ground floor of House 3186, Sector 27, Chandigarh. This house has a first floor and a Barsati too. Two rooms on the Barsati are with the landlord while the rest of the accommodation is with tenants.

4. In their petition for ejectment, the landlords Ram Singh and his son Mohar Singh sought possession of the ground floor on account of their old age and the mental ailment of Sushil Kaur. Admittedly, neither Ram Singh nor Mohar Singh own or possess any other residential accommodation in Chandigarh While he was in service Mohar Singh had, no doubt, been allotted government residential accommodation, but he is no longer in possession thereof since his retirement on October 31, 1987.

5. The main factor which appears to have weighed with the appellate authority in denying relief to the landlords was the fact, that during the pendency of the proceedings, the first floor of the building fall vacant and it was again, let out to another tenant This, it was observed, rendered their bona fides open to question.

6. In dealing with this aspect of the matter, it must be appreciated that it was specifically the possession of the ground floor of the building that was sought for personal occupation, on the grounds, as mentioned earlier, namely; the old age of the landlords and the mental ailment of Sushil Kaur. What bad fallen vacant during the pendency of the proceedings was the first floor and this was then letout to another tenant. The evidence on record shows that it was let out at the same rent as was being paid by the previous tenant.

7. The law is well-settled that when the entire house is in the possession of more than one tenant, with each tenant occupying a separate and different portion thereof, the choice rests with the landlord of selecting the portion or portions he needs for his personal use and occupation. In a case like the present where the landlord specifically seeks possession of the ground floor and that too for sound and plausible reasons as set forth in the petition. The fact that when the first floor fell vacant, he did not occupy it but let it out again, cannot be taken to detract from his bona fides.

8. According to the counsel for the tenant, however, the landlord would disentitle himself to an order for ejectment on the ground of personal necessity where during the pendency of the proceedings, a part of the house is vacated by another tenant and it is again let out on rent. Cited in support being Krishan Dev and Ors. V/s. Dhian Singh, 1980 (2) R. C. R.141,; Gurbachan Singh V/s. Sh. Chaman Lal Kapur, 1981 (2) R. C. R.667, and Shri Makhan Singh V/s. Shri Shadev Rai Soni, 1985 (2) R. C. R.435, All these cases are, however, distinguishable on facts from the present case, inasmuch as, here the specific prayer of the landlord was for the ground floor and for the special reasons mentioned in the petition.

9. The appellate authority had also held against the landlords with regard to the reasons for which possession on the ground floor was sought by them. It being observed in this behalf that the evidence led did not show that either on account of old age of the landlords or the mental ailment of Sushi) Kaur, it was imperative for them to live on the ground floor