LAWS(P&H)-2023-12-106

ANIL KUMAR Vs. SUDARSHAN KUMARI

Decided On December 01, 2023
ANIL KUMAR Appellant
V/S
SUDARSHAN KUMARI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition has been filed under Sec. 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') impugning the judgment dtd. 1/12/2018 passed by the Rent Controller, Khanna, whereby petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Sec. 13 of the Act has been allowed and petitioner-tenants have been directed to vacate the demised premises and hand over the possession of the same to the respondent-landlord within a period of two months from the date of judgment as well as against the judgment dtd. 9/10/2023 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Rent Controller dtd. 1/12/2018, has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent-landlord filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner-tenants from the shop situated at Ward No.10, Mohalla Dhobian, Khanna Kalan, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, on the ground of non-payment of rent and for settling her widow daughter-in-law in the said shop. The said petition was allowed by the Rent Controller vide judgment dtd. 1/12/2018 on the ground of personal necessity. Aggrieved against the judgment of the Rent Controller, petitioners preferred appeal, which has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dtd. 9/10/2023. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that both the Courts below erred in ordering ejectment of the petitioners from the demised shop. He further contended that Courts below failed to appreciate that respondent-landlord had failed to prove her personal necessity. He further contended that respondent has concealed the fact that she was having two more shops, which could be used to run business of her daughter-in-law. He further contended that respondent did not produce any other witness even her daughter-in-law has not stepped into the witness box to corroborate her version regarding bona fide need of the shop in dispute.