Landlords have the discretion to determine the necessity of their premises, unencumbered by tenant objections or court interference.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. This is landlords' revision petition against the order of reversal in an ejectment case.

2. A petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab (Urban Rent Restriction) Act, 1949 was filed by the landlords Suresh Chander and his wife Smt. Urmila Sharma (petitioners herein) seeking ejectment of tenant Anil Gogna from the demised premises i.e. House No. 1811, Mohalla Ariana Wala, Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh, consisting of two rooms and a kitchen on the ground floor, as shown in the enclosed site plan with letters ABCD, on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and bonafide necessity of the petitioners. During pendency of the petition, the tenant Anil Gogna expired and his legal heirs were brought on record.

3. The ejectment petition was accepted by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 20.12.2017 on the ground of bonafide need of the landlords. However, the appeal filed by the tenant Anil Gogna (through his LRs), was accepted by learned Appellate Authority vide his order dated 07.12.2019, thus, rejecting the ejectment petition.

4. Assailing the above-said reversal, it is contended by learned counsel for the landlords (petitioners herein) that though learned Appellate Court rightly noticed the legal position that tenant has no right to dictate to the landlord as to how he has to use his property and that the need of the landlord is required to be assessed from his point of view, but the Appellate Authority failed to apply the said legal position correctly in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is further contended that apart from ignoring the cogent evidence produced by the landlords, proving their bonafide need for the demised premises, the Appellate Authority even ignored the testimony of the widow and one of the daughters of the deceased tenant Anil Gogna, who corroborated the case of the petitioners-landlords regarding their bonafide requirement for the demised premises. With these submissions, prayer is made for setting aside the impugned order dated 07.12.2019 of the Appellate Authority; and to restore the order dated 20.12.2017 of Rent Controller, whereby the ejectment of the tenants was allowed.

5.1 During pendency of this revision petition, application bearing CM-3472-CII of 2024 is also moved for directing the respondents-tenants for tendering the rent along with interest besides payment of arrears of water and electricity charges. It is submitted that ever since March 2016, the rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 1500/- per month has not been paid till date, apart from electricity charges of Rs. 73,727/- and water charges of Rs. 45,714/-.

5.2 Despite opportunity to the respondents-tenants, no reply to the above application has been filed, though at the time of arguments, time was sought to pay the arrears after arranging loan.

5.3 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-tenants also opposed the main revision by submitting that learned Appellate Authority rightly came to the conclusion that petitioners-landlords have other premises in the same area, which are sufficient to satisfy their requirement and, therefore, the need of the landlords for the demised premises, was not bonafide. With these submissions, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

6. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides and have appraised the paper-book.

7. As per case of the petitioners, the demised premises forming part of House No. 1811 Mohalla Ariana Wala, Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh were in occupation of the respondents - tenants prior to purchase of the entire premises by the petitioners vide sale deed dated 05.02.2015. The petitioners-landlo