JATINDER KAUR Vs. S.K. DHALIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition is at the instance of the tenant, who has been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller on the ground of personal necessity by the Appellate Court reversing the decision of the Rent Controller. Before the Rent Controller, the landlord sought for eviction on the ground that the property which had been let out for running a business in general store had been modified for user of property for running some other business dealing with some gas products. The other ground urged was that the landlady who was running a boutique wanted to run a business in the same premises and that it was necessary for her own use.

(2.) THE tenant contested the petition on the ground that the landlady had filed a petition with reference to change of user earlier along with several other grounds on 29.10.1994. Even when the petition was pending, a second petition was filed on the same ground including the ground of change of user and allowed earlier petition filed to be dismissed for default. There had been no attempt to have the petition restored and the petitioner was barred from prosecuting the petition without restoring the earlier application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC.

(3.) THE Appellate Court affirmed the decision with reference to finding that the landlord had not established the fact of change in user but reversed the finding with reference to bona fide necessity by observing that the landlord's husband had actually started his own business in dealing with the spare parts after his retirement and the landlord was the best judge of her own requirement. If yet another property had been in occupation of the husband, she cannot be denied the right of obtaining eviction in respect of the same property.