PARMOD KUMAR Vs. SUDESH KUMARI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order of eviction dated 23.03.2012 passed by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, which has been upheld by the appellate Authority vide judgment dated 03.07.2015 on the ground of personal necessity.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-landlady has admitted in her cross-examination that she is residing at Faridabad, which is a house owned by her along with her husband and son and further that the house behind the shop is in a dilapidated condition and she does not intend to reconstruct the same and, therefore, there is no likelihood of respondent-landlady to come to the place like Hoshiarpur and stay there with her husband, who, during interregnum, has suffered a paralytic attack and is bed ridden and required constant care. If that be so, she would not be able to run her confectionary shop in the demised premises. He, thus, contends that the orders passed by the Courts below deserve to be set-aside. In support of the contention that subsequent events can also be taken into consideration by the Court, he has placed reliance upon Mohd. Ismail v. Dinkar Venayakrao Dorlikar, 2010 (2) PLR 670, Arun Vig v. Maya Guglani, 2013 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 274, Manpreet Arora v. Jagan Nath, 2000 (1) RentLR 111, Jai Prakash Gupta (D) thr. Lrs. v. Riyaz Ahamad and Anr., 2010 (2) PLR 673 and Kedar Nath Agrawal (Dead) v. Dhanraji Devi (Dead) by LRs, 2004(9) JT 113. He, thus, contends that in the changed circumstances, the respondent-landlady would not require the shop for her personal necessity as she would not be able to run the same as a confectionary shop.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the orders passed by the Courts below.