BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. HARBHAJAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Bhupinder Singh, tenant, against the concurrent order and finding of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, by which a finding has been recorded that respondent Harbhajan Kaur (landlady) requires the demised premises for personal need and occupation and on that basis ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises has been ordered.

(2.) LANDLADY Harbhajan Kaur (respondent herein) retired as a Teacher from a primary School on October 31, 1991. The dismissed premises in question i.e, ground floor of house No. 7845/5, situated in Guru Tag Bahadur Nagar, Lehal Colony, Patiala, had been rented out to the petitioner by the landlady. The house is built on a sixteen marla plot. The ground floor consists of two bed rooms, drawing room, dining room, kitchen etc. and almost similar accommodation is on the first floor, which is being occupied by the landlady Harbhajan Kaur. After retirement, she had filed a petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on November 22, 1991, for ejectment of the petitioner as a specified landlord on the ground that she was not owner in possession of any suitable accommodation in the local area, in which she intended to reside. That petition has also been allowed on November 3, 1992. However, against the said order, C.R. No. 3644 of 1992 had been filed by the tenant Bhupinder Singh, Which was admitted and dispossession was stayed.

(3.) IT may be observed here that the landlady had claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per mensem and the tenant had denied the same and had averred that the rate of rent is Rs. 300/- per mensem since the premises were let out to him in the year 1982. So far as averments regarding personal necessity are concerned, it was averred as under :-