GUPTA CLOTH STORE AND ORS. Vs. KRISHNA DEVGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this application is for preponement of the date of hearing of the main case.

(2.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contends that at this belated stage when the appeal was fixed for arguments and the counsel had sought an adjournment to prepare the case for the said purpose, application for amendment of the written statement was moved. This was intentionally done to delay the decision in the appeal and ultimately the process of eviction as the Rent Controller has already passed an order of eviction which has been challenged by the petitioners before the Appellate Authority, Amritsar. His submission is that the income of the son of the respondent -landlady would not be essential for the decision of the matter as the personal necessity is not dependent upon the income but primarily, it is the requirement of the landlady and her son whom she wants to settle in Amritsar. The very basis of the order impugned is relatable to the same and, therefore, the same is in accordance with law which does not call for any interference. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in J. Samuel & others v/s. Gattu Mahesh & others, : 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 903 : (2012) 2, Supreme Court Cases 300.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance, gone through the impugned order and the judgments referred to by them.