BALWINDER SINGH WALIA Vs. ANU JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'the Act') by the petitioner/tenant impugning the judgment of the Rent Controller dtd. 30/10/2019 (Annexure P-1), whereby the ejectment from the demised premises was ordered, and also the order passed by the Appellate Authority dtd. 12/7/2022 (Annexure P-2), whereby his appeal against the order of ejectment was dismissed.

(2.) The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner/ tenant is that ground of bona fide necessity of the respondent/landlady has not been established on record, therefore, the ejectment could not have been ordered. The document Ex.P-2 showing bona fide necessity cannot be said to have been proved merely because it has been exhibited. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court in International Institute of Neuro Sciences and Oncology Ltd., Chandigarh and another v. Sahibjit Singh Sandhu and others, 2017 (1) RCR (Rent) 632.

(3.) The respondent/landlady has pleaded that she requires the demised premises for setting up office of insurance agency, as she is insurance agent of various companies. To prove the fact she has placed on record the document, Ex.P-2, which is a certificate issued to her by the Oriental Insurance Company mentioning her ID number.