LAWS(P&H)-2012-11-205

UPINDER KAUR ETC Vs. JAGMOHAN SINGH & ANR

Decided On November 08, 2012
UPINDER KAUR ETC Appellant
V/S
Jagmohan Singh And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners(tenants) are in revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), against the concurrent findings returned by both the courts below, whereby eviction petition filed by Jagmohan Singh and Harmohan Singh against tenants Upinder Kaur, Manjit Singh and Harpreet Singh has been allowed from the property in question, which is Chobara, by the learned Rent Controller, Patiala vide its order dated 14.10.2011 on the ground of personal necessity of Fatehdeep Singh (son of Harmohan Singh respondent no.2) and grand son of respondent no.1 landlords and the findings thereof have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala vide its judgment dated 3.10.2012.

(2.) In brief, facts of the case are that a petition was filed by the landlords/respondent nos.1 & 2 on the ground that Chobara was rented out to petitioners vide rent note dated 25.2.1987 at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. However, the petitioners(tenants) had further subletted the property to respondent no.3 Harpreet Singh and as such the petitioners (tenants) are guilty of subletting. Another ground taken by the respondents was of non payment of rent by the petitioners(tenants) and lastly ground of personal necessity of Fatehdeep Singh who is son of respondent no.2 and grandson of respondent no.1 was also taken as they wanted to settle him in business by giving him an independent premises for the purpose.

(3.) Upon notice, petitioners(tenants) filed reply whereby all the averments were denied and it was stated that the landlords had earlier filed a petition on the ground of subletting. However, the said petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 20.10.2004 and the findings were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 9.4.2006. Thus, it was stated that since the ground of subletting already stands adjudicated, the present petition is not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the necessity of Fatehdeep Singh is absolutely frivolous and the sole motive is to further let out the premises at a higher rent.