G.R Majithia, J.:— This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller allowing the application filed by the respondent/landlord under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and ordering eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the demised premises.
2. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that he was the owner of the demised premises. He was to retire on September 30, 1986 and was on leave preparatory to retirement. He did not own or possess any other house in Jalandhar city nor he had vacated any house without any sufficient cause. He wanted to reside in the demised premises with his family after retirement. Piara Lal husband of respondent No. 1 was his tenant. He died and his widow continued to remain in possession and became a tenant by operation of law.
3. The tenant in the written reply took various objections, namely, that the petition was not maintainable; that the alleged certificate of retirement was not proper since it was not issued by the competent authority; that the petition was bad for non joinder of Smt. Nirmal Seth, who is daughter of Piara Lal deceased and had inherited tenancy rights along with her mother; that the landlord had sufficient accommodation in his possession.
4. The Rent Controller framed the following issues:—
1. Whether application is not maintainable? OPR
2. Whether application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR
3. Whether applicant is entitled to possession of the demised premises as specified landlord? OPA
4. Relief.
5. All the issues were decided in favour of the landlord.
6. The learned counsel for the tenant made two fold submissions before me, namely, (i) that the landlord had sufficient accommodation in his possession and the instant petition was filed only to evict the tenant (ii) the daughter of the tenant who succeeded to the tenancy rights alongwith her mother was a necessary party and in her absence the petition could not be allowed.
7. The learned Rent Controller on appreciation of evidence produced on record came to the conclusion that the accommodation in possession of the landlord was insufficient to meet his requirement. The learned counsel highlighted the number of rooms which the landlord had in his possession. The perusal of the site plan reveals that the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller is unexceptionable. The small rooms which can only be used for storage cannot be used for residential purposes. The learned counsel wanted me to hold that the accommodation in possession of the landlord was sufficient to meet his requirement but on the material produced on record, the submission made cannot be accepted. In the evening of his life, the landlord is entitled to live confortably in the company of his sons and grandsons. Their company can give him much needed solace and satisfaction. The testimony of the landlord deserves to be accepted.
8. The second ground that tenant's daughter was not made a party respondent in the eviction application is devoid of merit. She is married and living in her parents in laws house. She is not in possession of the demised premises. She did not come forward to refute the claim of the landlord. Her non-joinder does not disentitle the landlord to claim the relief.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision is dismissed. I leave the parties to bear their own costs.
R.M.S
Petition dismissed.