DARSHANA SHARMA Vs. VINOD VEENA

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 the eviction petition filed by the respondent No. 1 (landlady) was partly allowed on the ground of personal necessity only by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide its order dated 14.10.2010. Against the said order, two appeals were preferred, one by the landlady and other by the tenants. Vide common order dated 11.09.2012 learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar partly accepted the appeal filed by the landlady by stating that tenants are liable for eviction on the grounds of change of user and also material additions and alterations apart from personal necessity. However, the appeal filed by the tenants was dismissed. In brief, facts of the case are that the respondent (landlady) Dr. Mrs. Vinod Veena filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the petitioners (tenants) from the demised premises which is a house in Jalandhar on the ground that the petitioners (tenant nos. 2 & 3) are sub tenants who have been inducted by tenant No. 1 (respondent No. 2) without any authority and thus, they are liable to be evicted. A plea of demised premises having been converted into a non residential building without the written consent of the landlady was also taken as it was stated that a school is being run by the petitioners (tenants) whereas the building is earmarked for residential purposes. It was also stated in the ejectment application that the petitioners (tenants) have made material additions and alterations in the demised premises and thus they are also liable to be ejected on this ground as well. Finally, it was also averred that the premises was required by the landlady for her own use and occupation because her son Udham Kumar is a qualified doctor and he intends to start a clinic as well as use the premises for his residence after he gets married.

(2.) UPON notice, all the averments were denied by Surjit Lal Dhingra respondent No. 2 herein/tenant No. 1 and it was stated that the necessity that has been projected is absolutely false and frivolous. It was also denied that there is any kind of subletting by him in favour of petitioners herein. Remaining grounds were also denied and prayer was made for dismissal of the petition.

(3.) REJOINDER was filed wherein the entire contents of the petition were reiterated and those of the written statements were denied.