RADHEY SHYAM Vs. USHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against judgments dated 29.1.2009 and 9.3.2010 passed respectively by the Rent Contrailer and Appellate Authority, Patiala whereby the application of the landlady - Respondent for eviction of the tenant-Petitioner from the demised premises was accepted and his appeal was dismissed.

(2.) The landlady-Respondent had sought the ejectment of the tenant-Petitioner from the demised premises, which is an amalgamation of three shops into one shop, on the ground of her personal necessity. It was averred that the landlady, who is a widow, was going to retire in near future from the government service and wanted to set up her own business venture of embroidery and stitching etc. in the demised premises.

(3.) Upon notice, the tenant-Petitioner appeared and disputed the personal need of the landlady by filing a written statement and pleaded that the tenancy was for three shops and consequently, the single application for eviction was not maintainable; that there was a room in existence which was in occupation of one Asha Rani, daughter-in-law of the landlady wherein she was running a beauty parlour which was vacated by her; that the said room was sufficient for meeting the requirement of the landlady; and that the landlady had failed to satisfy the ingredients of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act') as she failed to plead and prove that she was not occupying any other non-residential building or shop and that she had not vacated/got vacated any such building or shop in the urban estate where the demised premises are situated. To substantiate his assertion with regard to non-compliance of the ingredients of Section 13 of the Act, the tenant had made a reference to the shop which was let out to one Paramjit Kaur Dhillon in the year 1989 and stated that since after coming into force of the Act, such premises were got vacated by the landlady and then let out to Paramjit Kaur Dhillon, she had violated those provisions. It was the further case of the tenant that the landlady was already residing in the building which is commercial in nature and had sufficient accommodation wherein she could commence her proposed venture.