Lekh Raj vs Parkash Kaur

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The tenant is before this court against the orders passed by the courts below, whereby his eviction has been ordered from the premises in dispute. Briefly, the facts are that in the year 1991, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had taken the premises in dispute on monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. It consisted of two rooms, Dalan and kitchen. The eviction petition was filed on the ground of non-payment of rent and also on the ground of personal necessity. The specific plea taken by the respondent-landlord was that she was residing in a rented accommodation itself. Both the courts below found that need of the landlord was genuine, hence, ordered eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is an old lady. She wants the petitioner to be evicted from the first floor of the premises in dispute. It is difficult for the respondent to reside on the first floor. He further submitted that the landlord should have sought eviction of the tenant on the ground floor as the same was most suitable for her.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The fact that the landlord herself is residing in a rented accommodation is good enough to prove the bonafide requirement of the premises by her. As far as adequacy or suitability of the landlord is concerned, the tenant is none to dictate terms. It is for the landlord to see which part of the premises is most suitable for her. To state that the landlord should get the tenant on the ground floor evicted instead of him, who is on the first floor, is neither here nor there. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the courts below. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.