Bona fide landlord need and statutory tenancy principles supported eviction despite the alleged rent agreement.

Landlord's bona fide need was treated as genuine where the requirement was to settle a widowed daughter, and suitability of the premises had to be assessed from the landlord's perspective. The tenant could not insist that the proposed coaching activity be confined to the upper floors. The alleged five-year rent agreement was denied and was not relied on by the courts below; once ignored, it did not bar the eviction petition. The tenancy was treated as a statutory tenancy under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, so eviction could be pursued on statutory grounds despite any contractual arrangement. The eviction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the eviction order on the ground of the landlord's bona fide personal was justified and whether the alleged five-year rent agreement barred the eviction petition.

Analysis: The landlord's requirement for settling her widow daughter was held to be genuine. Suitability of the premises had to be judged from the landlord's perspective, and the tenant could not insist that the proposed coaching activity be started only on the upper floors. The alleged rent agreement was denied by the tenant and was not relied upon by the courts below; once ignored, its terms did not bind the parties. The tenancy was treated as a statutory tenancy under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, and eviction could be sought on grounds available under that statute notwithstanding the contractual arrangement.

Conclusion: The eviction was upheld and the revision petitioner was not entitled to interfere with the concurrent findings.

---