The landlord has the liberty to decide the suitability of the premises for her needs, and the statutory tenancy under the Rent Act prevails regardless of the terms of the rent agreement.

1. Respondent Kulwant Kaur filed a petition under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of the revision petitioner from the ground floor and basement area of SCF No. 22, Phase-X, SAS Nagar, Mohali on the ground of arrears of rent and personal bona fide necessity for the settlement of her daughter namely Surinder Sidhu, who was married to an Army Officer, who died in insurgency. After the death of her husband, Ms. Surinder Sidhu had been residing with respondent along with her two children i.e. a son and a daughter. She was B.Ed. and post-graduate in English and was working as Teacher at Guru Nanak Public School, Chandigarh. She intended to live separate with her children after hiring a house on rent and in order to supplement her income, wanted to start a coaching centre of English subject imparting training for IELTS and also to start classes for science subject with the assistance of her daughter, who was final year student of Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh at the time of filing of the petition. The demised premises being ground floor and basement were more suitable for running a Coaching Centre as compared to the remaining portion of the SCF. It was alleged by the respondent that the tenancy was to commence under the rent agreement dated 16.10.2008, w.e.f. 01.12.2008 for a period of five years and the rent was settled as follows:--

1.12.08 to 30.11.2009 Rs. 80,000/- per month

1.12.10 to 30.11.2010 Rs. 84,800/- per month

1.12.10 to 30.11.2011 Rs. 89,888/- per month

1.12.10 to 30.11.2012 Rs. 95,282/- per month

1.12.10 to 30.11.2013 Rs. 1,00,999/- per month

2. The revision petitioner-tenant, in the written statement, denied the rate of rent and settlement of any terms of rent vide rent agreement dated 16.10.2008. He alleged that the rate of rent was orally settled as ` 40,000 per month + water and electricity charges. The rent upto April, 2009 had already been paid vide cheques and thereafter the respondent refused to accept the cheques. The requirement of the demised premises for the personal bona fide necessity of the respondent was denied with the plea that two floors of the premises are already lying vacant which the landlady-respondent can use for the purpose of starting Coaching Centre.

3. The respondent reiterated her case in the rejoinder. Pleadings of the parties led to the framing of following issues:--

"(1) Whether the applicant is entitled to evict respondent from the demised premises? OPP

(2) Whether the present petition is not maintainable? OPR

(3) Whether the applicant has got no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR

(4) Relief."

4. Rent Controller, SAS Nagar, Mohali disbelieved and discarded the rent note and accepted the plea of revision petitioner that the rate of rent was `40,000 per month and not ` 80,000 per month. The plea of respondent-landlady that she required the demised premises for her personal bona fide necessity to settle her widow daughter was held as bona fide and genuine. Revision petitioner was ordered to vacate the demised premises and hand over the vacant possession of the same to respondent-landlady within a period of three months from the date of order of Rent Controller.

5. Not satisfied, revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which was also dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that the revision petitioner is a tenant on the ground floor and basement of SCF No. 22, Phase-X, SAS Nagar, Mohali. First and second floor of this premises are lying vacant. The purpose of seeking the ejectment of the revision petitioner is the requirement of daughter of respondent who wants to start a Coaching Centre in this premises and for this purpose, first and second floor are most suitable as other Coaching Centres are also running on first and second floors in that vicinity. He has further argued that as per the case of responde