Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learnt Rent controller the landlady appeared as her own witness and substantiated these averments. This stand was further supported by AW-4 Shri Surinder Kumar Berry, nephew of the landlady as also AW-I Dr. Surinder Singh Madan, a private practitioner who had conducted the E.C.G. of the landlady in the year 1985. He stated that as per the report she had some heart problem. However, he could not tell the latest position as the E.C.G. was done in the year 1985. However, he further stated that at that time she had a heart problem. The report of the E.C.G. was also placed on the record as Ex. A-2 and the receipt as Ax. A-3. On the basis of the aforementioned pleadings and evidence the appellate authority recorded the following findings on the ground of personal necessity:

18. It was stated by the applicant, AW-3 that "she is living in the upper portion of the building and is to climb 15 stairs to reach the same. She is suffering from heart disease and high blood pressure for which she has already consulted the doctors and E.C.G. of her heart was also done from time to time. While climbing the stairs, it is difficult for her to contain her breath and she has to put extra exertion on her heart. She climbs the stairs by taking some rest and by sitting on the same. She requires the demised premises bona fide for her own use and occupation. Her health is falling day by day." This evidence of the applicant that she is a heart patient and is suffering from high blood pressure and on that grounds finds it difficult to climb the staircase did not find favour with the learned Rent Controller on the ground that she has not brought on record any corroborative evidence to prove that she is suffering from such kind of ailment and that she was required to lead cogent and convincing evidence that she was actually suffering from such a problem. The statement of the applicant could not have been brushed arise simply on that ground. In fact, there is corroborative evidence also on record, which the learned Rent Controller has totally ignored. The applicant examined Dr. Surinder Singh Madan, AW-1. He stated that "the applicant got her E.C.G. examined from his clinic." He proved on record his own report as Ex.A1, E.C.G. report Ex.A2 and the receipt as Ex.A3. His statement was not challenged during his cross-examination and he was only asked if the problem from which the applicant was suffering was temporary or not. He stated that she was suffering from temporary problem, which can decrease or increase. It is very much clear from his report Ex.A1 and E.C.G. of the applicant was normal. The applicant, AW-3 has also deposed to the effect that she has got herself examined from the respondent itself. The prescription slip was proved by her as AW-3/2. She was not cross-examined on that aspect of the case nor the respondent rebutted that portion of her statement. The prescription slip so proved by the applicant was objected to on the mode of proof but when the same was put to the respondent RW-4, during his cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of the writing of that prescription slip on 14.2.1985, he had examined the applicant and had found her blood pressure to be 180/100. He stated that she was not having heart trouble but had got the problem of high blood pressure,. That itself creates confidence in the statement, made by the applicant that she is suffering from heart trouble and from high blood pressure. It firmly stands proved from the evidence, produced by her that she is having heart problem and is suffering from high blood pressure.
(v) Lastly he argued that the appellate authority has not dealt with the issues framed by the Rent Controller individually and independent. Thus the order of the appellate authority deserves to be set aside on this ground alone.

7. The first four issues relate to the plea set up by the landlady on the ground of personal necessity. The landlady is about 70 years of age today. She is currently occupying the First Floor of the house. In her own evidence she has stated that she is suffering from heart problem and high blood pressure. She has stated that she has been consulting the doctors in this regard from time to time. Even E.C.G. had been done. The doctor who has appeared has also supported this averment. He has stated that at the time when E.C.G. was done she had some heart problem. The landlady has further stated that she use to get breathless while climbing the stairs and sometimes has to take rest in the midst of climbing the entire flight of staiRs. I am of the opinion that at this stage when the landlady is over 70 years of age it will not be fair to deny her the comfort of living in her own house in accordance with her desire and convenience. It is well settled that a landlord is the best judge of his needs and interests. The tenant does not have much to say in this decision of the landlord. It also cannot be lost sight of the fact that since in the year 1985 the landlady was having a heart problem she would at this stage certainly experience difficulty in climbing staiRs. Her evidence that she is suffering from high blood pressure as also heart problem cannot be disbelieved. The circumstances of her illness coupled with the fact that she is in an advance stage leads me to the conclusion that the necessity of the landlady is genuine and the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court needs no interference. In the view that I am taking I am supported by view taken by learned Single Judge of this Court in Raj Kumar Gambir v. Kanwar Sain Jain (2003-2)134 P.L.R. 156 which is as hereunder:

11. In her evidence, landlady had stated that she has been suffering from spinal problem and had got operated for the spinal problem in USA in September, 1996, where her brother is living. Prior to that she was under treatment at Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. She has also mentioned that she is suffering from heart problem and suffered a heart attack in October 1987 and remained admitted in Rajindra Hospital and underwent angioplasty for hear ailment in U.S.A. She had also brought all the documents regarding treatment taken by her in Rajindra Hospital, at Delhi as well as in U.S.A. The Court asked the counsel for the tenant if he wanted to get information about the name of the hospital from where she had got operated upon, which the landlady could give from record she had brought but the counsel stated that he did not want any such information.