KIRPAL SINGH Vs. BARJINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in revision against the order of the Appellate Authority by which order of the Rent Controller has been reversed and the eviction order has been passed.

(2.) In brief, the landlady filed the petition for eviction of the petitioner from the ground floor of property bearing no.71, situated at East Mohan Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar on the ground that he is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.08.1996 @ Rs. 575/- per month; made additions and alterations without permission and demised premises is required for bona fide use and occupation of her unemployed son. It was also averred that neither the landlady nor her son possessed or vacated any such other property in the urban area concerned. The eviction petition was allowed on 18.11.2006. The petitioner challenged that order by way of appeal but it was dismissed on 15.12.2009. The petitioner filed CR No.618 of 2010 which was allowed by this Court and the case was remanded back to the Rent Controller, Amritsar but this time, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition vide its order dated 07.06.2012 but the Appellate Authority has allowed the eviction petition vide the impugned order dated 14.08.2014 on the ground that the demised premises is required by the landlady for her use and occupation.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that sons of the landlady did not appear in the witness box to allege that they wanted the demised premises to start their business rather they are living in South Africa, therefore, there was no bona fide necessity. However, the Appellate Authority has observed that:-