(1.) LANDLADY , Kala Wati has approached this Court through the present petition. She has challenged the order dated September 16, 1987, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala whereby on an appeal filed by tenant, Ram Piari, the ejectment order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Patiala was set aside and consequently the ejectment petition filed by the landlady was dismissed.
(2.) LANDLADY , Ram Piari, filed an ejectment petition against tenants, Kala Wati and others. The ejectment of the tenants was sought on the grounds of non- payment of the arrears of rent; the tenants having caused material additions and alterations in the structure without the written consent of the landlady; the tenants having changed the user of the part of a premises and having started running a shop of electrical goods, repair of tyres and tubes; the premises being required for personal use and occupation of the landlady and her family members. The ejectment petition was contested by the tenants. They denied all the grounds of the ejectment. They claimed that premises in question was being used for the same purpose for which it had been let out and, therefore, there was no change of user. It was also denied that no addition or alteration were carried out by them. The personal necessity of the landlady was also denied. It was claimed that the landlady had sufficient accommodation for her own use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller held that the tenants had not changed the user of the premises in question. However, it was held that material alterations had been carried out by the tenants without the consent of the landlady and on that account the value and utility of the premises had been impaired. Similarly the personal necessity of the landlady was held not to be proved. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned Rent Controller, allowed the ejectment petition filed by the landlady and ordered ejectment of the tenants.
(3.) THE landlady has now approached this Court through the present revision petition.