1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 814    OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.28193/2010)

RANBIR TALIB @ RANBIR SATWANT SINGH        Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

M/S. BHATIA GAS        Respondent(s)

           O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the  

judgment and order dated 8th July, 2010 passed by the  

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in  

Civil Revision No.5081 of 2003 whereby the revision  

filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the  

High Court.  

3. The appellant-landlady filed a petition under  

Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction  

Act, 1949  before the  Rent Controller,  Chandigarh,

2

seeking ejectment of the respondent-tenant from 229,  

Industrial  Area,  Phase-I,  Chandigarh,  (hereinafter  

referred to as the demised premises). It was stated  

in the eviction petition that the demised premises  

was required by the appellant for herself as well as  

her husband and son. The Rent Controller allowed the  

petition for ejectment on the ground of bona fide  

personal  requirement  and  directed  the  respondent-

tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the  

demised premises to the appellant-landlady within a  

period of three months from the date of the order.  

4. Aggrieved  by  the  order  passed  by  the  Rent  

Controller,  the  respondent-tenant  filed  an  appeal  

before the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. By its  

Judgment dated 3.6.2003, the Appellate Authority set  

aside  the  order  passed  by  the  Rent  Controller.  

Reversing the finding of the Rent Controller, the  

Appellate Authority held that the landlady was not  

entitled  for  ejectment  of  the  tenant  from  the  

demised  premises  on  the  ground  of  personal  

necessity.   

5. The appellant-landlady filed a civil revision

3

before  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  

Chandigarh.  The High Court upheld the judgment of  

the Appellate Authority and dismissed the revision.  

The  appellant  is,  thus,  before  this  Court  

challenging  the  judgment  and  order  passed  by  the  

High Court.

6. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties and have perused the impugned judgment as  

also the judgments of the Courts below.  

7. In the facts and circumstances of this case,  

we are of the considered view that the Appellate  

Authority committed serious error in reversing the  

finding of bona fide personal necessity arrived at  

by  the  Rent  Controller  on  the  basis  of  cogent  

evidence  on  record.  Consequently,  the  impugned  

judgment and order of the High Court affirming the  

judgment  of  the  Appellate  Authority  cannot  be  

sustained.  

8. Accordingly,  the  impugned  judgment  of  the  

High Court as also the judgment of the Appellate  

Authority are set aside and order passed by the Rent

4

Controller is restored. The appeal is allowed. The  

parties are directed to bear their respective costs.  

9. However, as prayed for by the learned counsel  

for the respondent, two years' time is granted to  

the respondent to vacate the demised premises upon  

filing  usual  undertaking  in  the  Registry  of  this  

Court within four weeks from today.   

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi; January 17, 2012.