Sufficiency of evidence to support the landlady's claim for self occupation and the consideration of the nature of differences with the son and daughter-in-law in determining the bonafide need for ejectment.

M. S. Liberhan, J.

1. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground that the landlady required the demised premised for her own occupation. The demised premises consist of one room and a kitchen. Undisputedly, the landlady is about 82 years of age by now and has got only one son with whom she has been living for the last two decades. The tenant was admittedly living with his wife in the demised premises for the last 19 years which fact has not been disputed. The appellate Court did not believe the landlady regarding her need for self occupation and that differences with her son and daughter-in-law were of such a nature that she could not live with them in this fag end of her life particularly when he is her only son.

2. The view taken by the appellate authority has been challenged very vehemently and reliance has been placed on Shanti Devi V/s. A. R. Chadha and Co. and Ors. , 1986 H. R. R.58 and C. L. Bhasin V/s. B. S. Chauhan, 1982 (2) R. L. R.533. The judgment cited are on their own facts. The authorities in these cases had believed the statement of the landlord with respect to his need for self occupation Herein though a different view may be capable of being taken but it cannot be said that the view taken by the appellate authority is perverse. Except a self serving statement of that old lady, there is nothing much reliable put on the record to show the the differences between her and her son as also her daughter-in law are such that they cannot live together. In ordinary course of human conduct, mothers are looked after in their old age by the sons and the grand sons and the old ladies love their grand-children and want to spend the last years of their lives in the company of their grand children inspite of their differences with the daughters-in-law.

3. I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of my revisional jurisdiction. No error of law nor any impropriety has been pointed out. It is not disputed that the tenant has lived in the premises for about two decades and the landlady has been living with his son for more than that period Admittedly, she is looked after by her son. In view of these circumstances, the ground of bonafide need of the landlady was rightly rejected. In view of the above observations, I find no force in the revision petition and the same is dismissed

4. Counsel for the respondents states that the rent would be reasonably increased as it being only Rs.30/- per month, can by no means be termed as reasonable rent for an accommodation at a place like Amritsar.