2023:PHHC:087173

CR-7025-2015 (O&M)

--1--

225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-7025-2015 (O&M)

Decided on:-12.07.2023

Mohini Devi

....Petitioner..

vs.

Ajit Singh

....Respondent.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:

Mr. Divyanshu Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate and

Mr. Sukesh K. Jindal, Advocate for respondent.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

1.

By way of present petition, challenge has been made to the

judgment dated 08.09.2015 passed in Rent Appeal No.366 of 17.11.2014

filed at the instance of petitioner-landlady, whereby, an appeal presented by

the respondent-tenant, challenging the order of eviction passed by the Rent

Controller, Chandigarh on 19.09.2014 came to be allowed.

2.

In the present case, dispute relates to the tenanted premises i.e.

House No.533, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh, owned by petitioner-landlady.

3.

As per the averments, the tenancy started in the year 2004, at the

rate of Rs.3000/- per month being the rent with an understanding that an

increase of Rs.100/- shall be there on yearly basis. Subsequently, the

petitioner-landlady filed an eviction petition inter alia on the ground of

personal necessity, stating that she along with her husband is living in House

No.533, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh besides his son, daughter-in-law and three

grand children as well, whereas the same consists of two rooms only.

SONIKA

2023.07.14 18:00

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

2023:PHHC:087173

CR-7025-2015 (O&M)

--2--

Relevant para 7 from the eviction petition is reproduced hereunder for

reference:-

“That the petitioner and her husband are living in a two rooms

house owned by their son, who is living their with his family

consisting of his wife, two daughters and one son. Now the daughters

are grown up aged about 16 years, 14 years and son aged about 6

years. It has become difficult for the petitioner and her husband to live

with the family of their son in a small two rooms house. Therefore, the

petitioner requires the above said tenanted house for their personal

occupation and the requirement of the petitioner is bonafide.”

4.

In response, the respondent-tenant filed his objections/written

statement while submitting that the plea of bonafide necessity as raised by

the petitioner-landlady was not made out and further that she was having

sufficient accommodation with her and property in question was not

required for her personal use and accommodation.

5.

Not agreeing with the contention of the respondent-tenant, the

learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide order dated 19.09.2014, passed an

eviction order against him, holding the plea of personal necessity/bonafide

requirement of petitioner-landlady in her favour. Though as regards the

ground of non-payment of rent, the same was not pressed whereas the plea

of material impairment was recorded against the petitioner-landlady.

6.

Aggrieved of the judgment passed by the Rent Controller,

Chandigarh, two separate appeals were filed i.e. Rent Appeal No.334 of

27.10.2014, at the instance of respondent-tenant, challenging his eviction

whereas Rent Appeal No.366 of 17.11.2014 was filed at the instance of

petitioner-landlady, challenging the findings qua material impairment. Vide

composite order dated 08.09.2015, both the appeals came to be decided by

SONIKA

2023.07.14 18:00

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

2023:PHHC:087173

CR-7025-2015 (O&M)

--3--

the learned Appellate Court, Chandigarh, whereby, the appeal filed by the

petitioner-landlady was dismissed, however, the appeal filed at the instance

of respondent-tenant was allowed.

7.

Feeling dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment, the present petition

has been filed by the petitioner-landlord.

8.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the issue of

personal necessity of petitioner-landlady has been found in her favour even

by the appellate authori