KULWANT KAUR Vs. SARDARNI SAWINDER KAUR DHILLON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 21.08.2006 of the Rent Controller, Amritsar whereby eviction of the petitioners has been ordered on the ground of bonafide necessity of the respondent-landlords and on the ground that the premises in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, and the judgment dated 17.08.2011 of the Appellate Authority, Amritsar whereby appeal filed by the petitioner-tenants against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller was also dismissed.

(2.) In the eviction petition, the respondent-landlords pleaded that they require the demised premises for their own bonafide use and occupation as respondent No.3 has since retired from Army as Colonel on 21.07.1997 and is without any avocation in life, and respondent No.4 is a widow and wants to absorb herself in the business to keep herself busy, and therefore, they need the demised premises for their own use and occupation having been interested in setting up a restaurant on modern lines in the demised premises. It has been further averred that the respondent-landlords do not own or occupy any other commercial premises in the urban area of Amritsar. The respondentlandlords further pleaded that the demised premises was otherwise unfit and unsafe for human habitation having outlived its life and they want to rebuilt the same before commencement of their avocation therein. The structure is without proper foundation. It is of mud mortar and walls are cracked and disintegrated. It is most insanitary, full of dampness and affected by Saltar porter. Even the wooden roof had collapsed but the petitioners have relaid the same with R.B. slab without the consent of the respondent-landlords but the walls are unable to bear the massive weight of R.B. slab. The flooring provided is kacha with ruts and thus, the petitioner-tenants are liable to be evicted.

(3.) Upon notice, the petitioners filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that they were the tenants under respondents No.1 and 2 but denied that the premises in question has fallen to the share of respondents No.3 to 5. It was further denied that they were liable to be ejected from the demised premises. It was further stated that they have already paid the arrears of rent upto 31.07.1990 and have tendered the rent upto 30.09.1998 along with costs and interest. The requirement of respondent-landlords for the demised premises for their own use and occupation was also denied. It was further denied that the respondents do not own or possess any other commercial premises in the urban area of Amritsar.