RAJINDER PARSHAD Vs. RAJINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, both the revision petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment and for the sake of brevity, facts of Civil Revision No. 3868 of 2010 are being taken for the purpose of deciding the lis between the parties.

(2.) Tenant - revisionist has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the judgment dated 27.07.2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, as well as, judgment dated 13.03.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, thereby directing the eviction of the tenant - revisionist from the tenanted premises.

(3.) The brief facts of the present case, inter-alia, are that landlady - Respondent herein has filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act against the tenant on the ground that tenant has not paid or tendered the rent at the rate of 300/- per month w.e.f. 01.06.2001 till date despite of repeated demands; the shop in suit along with adjoining shops in possession of other tenants are bonafidely required by the landlady - Respondent herein for her own need and for that of her husband Dr. Inder Singh for setting up a coaching centre for Engineering students and the students of other allied studies. It has further been contended in the eviction petition that husband of the Petitioner has retired as Professor from College of Agricultural Engineering Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, on 31.01.1998; after his retirement, he joined as Professor and Head of the Department of Food Technology at Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Longowal on 15.04.1998 and worked there upto 14.10.1999; thereafter, he joined the said Institute as Visiting Professor and worked till May, 2000; after May, 2000, the Petitioner and her husband cannot suffice in the meager pension received by the husband and in order to increase the income of the family, Petitioner and her husband want to set up a Coaching Centre in the shop in question and adjoining shops.