SMT. LAJWANTI Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlady is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which her application for ejectment of the tenant has been dismissed.

(2.) In short, the landlady filed the eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] against the tenant in respect of a shop [hereinafter referred to as the "demised premises"] which was allegedly let out @ 300/- per month to the tenant. The eviction was sought, inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 01.10.1993 and that the shop in question is required by her personal use and occupation in which the landlady wanted to open a Dhaba/Tea-stall for her son Om Parkash who has not been doing anything. In reply, the tenant alleged that the landlady has not come to the Court with clean hands as her son Om Parkash is running his business in the property situated within the municipal limits of Kurali where she owns other shop also and has, thus, made up a concocted story that her son wants to run a Dhaba in the demised premises. After the pleadings were over, the issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller. The parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition on 21.02.2006 which was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Authority on 23.04.2007.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Courts below have only dealt with the ground of personal necessity and rejected it against the landlady on the ground that Om Parkash (A.W. 2) had alleged that he has got some land and is doing agriculture and as such, personal necessity of the landlady to settle her son Om Parkash is not bona fide. The Courts below have also observed that the landlady has possessed a Flour Mill (Atta Chakki) and since this fact was suppressed, therefore, the eviction petition was dismissed.