NARESH ARORA Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant for setting aside the order dtd. 12/10/2022 passed by the Ld. Rent Controller, Jalandhar (Annexure P-12) whereby the application of the petitioner for rejecting/striking off the second and third affidavits filed by the LR of the respondent-landlord, has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent Surinder Kumar/ original landlord (now deceased), filed an ejectment petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 for ejectment of the petitioner from the demised shop/ describable as shop No. 4 in property no. 494, Guru Nanakpura (East), Jalandhar. Ejectment of the petitioner was sought on various grounds including ground of personal necessity as respondent-landlord wanted to settle his daughter Ritu Bala/ (present respondent no.(iv)), who was a widow with two young children.

(3.) The only submission made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner is that great injustice has been caused to the petitioner as the learned Rent Controller has time and again allowed the said respondent(s) to file various affidavits as a result of which the respondent has been able to improve his case with each successive affidavit. It is submitted that each affidavit contains different pleadings as a result of which, over the time, material improvements have been permitted to be wrought in the case originally put forth by the respondent. Learned counsel submits that there are as many as four affidavits at Annexure P-3, Annexure P-5, Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-9 on record. Learned counsel also submits that requirement of the present respondent (iv) whose husband has expired, cannot be considered to be requirement of respondent Surinder Kumar/ original landlord of the demised premises.