The requirement of the landlord for eviction must be judged based on the circumstances at the time of filing the petition, and subsequent events do not affect the bonafide need established by the landlord.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. - The petitioner/landlord is impugning the judgment and order dated 06.05.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide which it reversed the findings of the Rent Controller in a petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act').

2. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to point out that the present rent petition was instituted before the Rent Controller on 27.10.1997, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.12.2002 in view of the notification dated 07.11.2002 vide which the Act was made inapplicable to UT, Chandigarh. The said notification was later set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.11.2006 passed in CA-4688-2006 titled as 'Vasu Dev vs. Union of India'. On 11.12.2006 an application for restoration of the present rent petition was moved by the petitioner, however, since the tenant was allegedly evading service in the restoration application, a fresh petition under Section 13 (second petition) of the Act was filed wherein it was specified in para No.5 that if the respondent appears in the restoration application, the second petition would be withdrawn, else the second petition would be pursued. Subsequently on 28.08.2009, the respondent put in an appearance in the restoration application of the first rent petition and accordingly the same was restored to its original number vide order dated 22.10.2009 and the second rent petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Hence, this revision petition emanates from the first rent petition filed by the petitioner/landlord.

3. The parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

The landlord sought eviction of the tenant from the demised premises i.e. annexe portion consisting of 2 rooms, enclosed verandah, kitchen, bathroom and latrine of House No.2157, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh, on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity.

4. As per the pleaded case of the landlord, he is the owner of House No.2157, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh. The tenant approached the landlord for taking the demised premises on rent for a period of one year on the ground that he was Legal Advisor to some industries in Gurgaon and Faridabad with headquarters at Delhi and he had to travel between Delhi and Chandigarh frequently. Hence, he required the demised premises for his residence. The tenant assured the landlord that he would vacate the demised premises as and when required by the latter. Resultantly, the demised premises was let out to the tenant for a period of one year on a monthly rent of ' 2,500/- exclusive of electricity charges, in the year 1996. The tenant was to vacate the demised premises after the expiry of one year as per their oral agreement, in July 1997. However, when the tenant was asked by the landlord in April 1997 to vacate the demised premises as he required it for his personal necessity, the tenant instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the landlord on false and frivolous grounds. The landlord pleaded in his petition that his family consisted of his wife and a married son who was also having a child. The married son of the landlord was working for a Management Institute in Gurgaon and on his frequent visits to Chandigarh, he stayed in the separate accommodation which had been kept for him within the main building of the house. Not only this, the son-in-law of the landlord was working in the Merchant Navy and hence, due to the nature of his job, his married daughter too had shifted to the house of the landlord from Delhi. It was further claimed that the daughter of the landlord had two small children aged 1 1/2 years and 3 years respectively. The landlord thus, averred that in view of the necessity of his married daughter and the assurances which had been given to the landlord by the tenant that he would vacate the premises as and when required by him, the tenant be ordered to be