SMT. CHAMELI Vs. SMT. SHAKUNTLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this revision are that Smt. Ram Chameli, petitioner was a tenant in house No. 823, ward No. 3, Kalka, district Ambala. The house was purchased by Smt. Shakuntla Devi, respondent. After the purchase of the house, Smt. Shakuntla Devi respondent moved the Rent Controller, Ambala under the Haryana Urban (Control) of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for the eviction of Smt. Ram Chameli on the ground of personal necessity. The ground pleaded by the respondent was that she was living in a rented premises. She has purchased the house for her own use and occupation, alongwith her husband and six children. The application was resisted by the petitioner who contested the bonafide necessity of the respondent and also raised an objection that no notice terminating the tenancy was served on her.

(2.) The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues in the case :-

(3.) After recording the evidence, the learned Rent Controller decided in favour of the respondent and ordered eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises. The petitioner unsuccessfully took the matter before the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala who also concurring with the findings of the learned Rent Controller, dismissed the eviction petition. Under the law, as it existed at the time of presenting the revision petition, it was filed before the Financial Commissioner and after the amendment of the Act, the same has been received in this Court for decision.