VEENA SOOD Vs. NEELAM VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred by the tenant Veena Sood against the order dated 04.08.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and the order dated 09.07.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the appellate authority, whereby the ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlady was allowed.

(2.) A brief matrix of the facts necessary for adjudicating the lis in the present case are that respondent-landlady, namely, Neelam Verma filed an ejectment petition stating therein that late Sh. G.S. Verma and Smt. Kamla Verma, her parents were owners of Flat No. 2404, Second Floor, BSNL (Tele House), Sector 50-C, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as, 'the demised premises). It was stated in the petition that after the death of her father the respondent-landlady inherited 25% share in the demised premises. It is also stated that the demised premises were given on rent by her late father to the petitioner herein at a monthly rent of Rs. 16,000/- vide agreement dated 09.09.2013 and that it was agreed that the rent would be increased after 11 months @8% per annum. The petitioner herein paid the rent upto June 2014 and, thereafter, the increased rent @ Rs. 17,280/- per month as per the agreement was not paid by the petitioner-herein. Hence it is claimed that the petitioner herein was in arrears of rent from August 2014 onwards upto May 2015. It is also stated in the ejectment petition that the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Surbhi, who was doing BDS from a College at Derabassi and her son who is a qualified engineer intended to start his own business in Chandigarh and had infact shifted to Chandigarh and was residing with his grandmother at Manimajra. Due to the hardships faced by her son and daughter she needed to shift to Chandigarh and, therefore, required the demised premises for her personal necessity and bonafide requirement.

(3.) Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant herein though appeared before the Rent Controller but did not file her reply to the petition and therefore, her defence was struck off by the Rent Controller vide order dated 02.03.2016.