PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. BAKHSHISH KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant revisionist has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the judgment dated 27.01.2004 passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, as well as, judgment dated 27.11.2004 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, thereby directing eviction of the tenant - revisionist herein.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that an eviction petition was filed by the landlords - respondents herein, inter-alia, on the ground that a plot was purchased by S. Surjit Singh and S. Gurnam Singh - respondent No.3 herein, in an open auction in the year 1973 from the Punjab State and they have constructed a shop-cum-flat thereon. After the death of S. Surjit Singh, his estate has devolved upon his widow i.e. respondent no.1 herein and his son - respondent no.2 herein. Demised premises was rented out to the tenant - revisionist for running the business of Sweets on the ground floor and residence on the first floor. It has been contended in the eviction petition that respondent no.2 herein is M.D. Medicines and he wants to start his clinic on the ground floor and first floor is required by respondent No.3 herein for setting up property consultant office as he has retired from service on 30.04.1997.

(3.) Revisionist - tenant herein contested the eviction petition filed by the landlords - respondents herein on the ground neither respondent no.2 nor respondent no.3 are landlord and only respondent no.1 is the landlady of the revisionist - tenant. It has further been contended by the tenant - revisionist that only respondent no.1 has been collecting the rent from the tenant alleging herself to be a landlady. It has been further pleaded by the tenant - revisionist that landlords have earlier filed eviction petition under Sec. 13 of the Act on the ground of bonafide need and thereafter, another eviction petition under Sec. 13-A of the Act was filed saying that respondent No.3 herein stood retired from the Government service, he needs demised premises for his personal use and occupation. It is further stated by the tenant that initially, petition under Sec. 13-A of the Act was allowed vide judgment dated 27.04.1998 and thereafter, first eviction petition filed by the landlords under Sec. 13 of the Act was got dismissed as withdrawn on 04.08.1998; order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 27.04.1998 on a petition under Sec. 13-A of the Act was stayed by this Court in a revision petition, hence, thereafter, landlords have filed present eviction petition which is hit by Order 23, Rule 1 (4) C.P.C.