In the present case, ejectment petition filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed by the Courts below on the ground of personal necessity. AW-3 Rajinder Singh Verma, in his cross-examination, deposed that in case the air conditioner was put up at a lower level by the petitioner, then he would withdraw his petition. From this, it appears that the landlady was mainly aggrieved by the fact that an air conditioner had been put up by the petitioner in the wall at a higher level whereas the landlady wanted that it should be put at a lower level. This shows that the landlady, in fact, did not require the premises in question for her personal use. Respondent No. 1-landlady has not appeared in the witness box to establish the factum of personal necessity. As per the case of the landlady, she required the premises in question for her son. Even the son of the landlady has not appeared in the witness box to establish the factum of personal necessity. In order to establish the factum of personal necessity, it was required by the landlady to have appeared in the witness box herself or at least examine her son qua whom the premises in question was required by her. Neither the landlady nor her son have appeared in the witness box. Husband of the landlady has appeared in the witness box as her attorney and the statement of the attorney cannot be said to be sufficient to establish the fact that the landlady required the premises in question for her personal use and occupation. During the course of arguments, it has transpired that the landlady was aged about 58 years. In such circumstances, she could have easily appeared before the Court. The landlady is resident of Singh GurpreetJagadhari and the case was also going on at Jagadhar. In the facts 2014.02.05 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
