MOHINDER KAUR Vs. SUDESH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlady's revision petition in whose favour, eviction order was passed by the learned Rent Controller but the same was set aside in appeal.

(2.) THE landlady, Mohinder Kaur sought the ejectment of her tenant, Sudesh Kumari from the demised premises being House No. 8/64, situated in the area of Mohalla Sheikhanwala, Kapurthala consisting of two rooms, on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent, the demised premises were required for her personal necessity and that the building in question had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The landlady specifically averred in the ejectment petition that since her husband who was in service in the Revenue Department of Haryana, had retired on September 30, 1988, she wanted to settle at Kapurthala permanently along with him and that she or her husband had no other house in their names except the house in question. Respondent-tenant filed written statement. Relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. It was, however, denied that the landlady required the premises for her own use and occupation.

(3.) THE primary ground of ejectment that survives now for purpose of this petition is that the house in question is needed by the landlady for her pwn use and occupation. During the course of arguments, it was agreed that the learned appellate authority had reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the ground of personal necessity only on two counts, (i) the landlady did not plead and prove all the ingredients of Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (for short 'the Act') and (ii) that the landlady had failed to prove that she required the premises for her bona fide use and occupation.