SUNITA ANGRISH Vs. PARDEEP SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The eviction petition filed by the petitioner-landlord was dismissed by the Rent Controller, vide order dated 25.03.2013. Appeal preferred against the said order also failed and was dismissed by the appellate authority vide judgment dated 09.03.2015. This is how, the landlord is before this Court, in this revision petition. In an eviction petition filed by the petitioner, she sought eviction of the respondent (tenant) from the demised premises i.e. shop No.1 built on area measuring 8'-9" x 10', which formed part of property NL-193, Mohalla Mahendru, Jalandhar City. It was averred that the demised premises was required by the petitioner for her own personal use and bona fide need of her husband as he was unemployed and sitting idle. Petitioner along with her husband intended to start her own general merchants business in the demised premises. It was maintained that the petitioner does not occupy any other property in any urban area in Punjab except the property No. NL-193, Mohalla Mahendru, Jalandhar City.

(2.) In defence, it was pleaded, inter alia, that the site plan placed on record by the petitioner was incorrect. In fact, property bearing No.NL-193, Mohalla Mahendru, Jalandhar City, was comprised of a residential premises as also 3 shops including the demised premises. However, the petitioner had neither depicted the said accommodation nor made any reference thereto in the eviction petition.

(3.) On an analysis of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner in support of her claim had placed reliance upon site plan (Ex.P1). However, she had concealed that two other shops adjacent to the demised premises were also in her occupation and possession. Site plan (Ex.R3) proved by the respondent (tenant) as also the photographs Ex.R1/13 and Ex.R1/14 proved the existence of the said two shops. In fact, the construction of the other two shops, adjacent to the demised premises, was conceded by the petitioner in her cross examination. But maintained that those were small and insufficient. But she was unable to testify the length and breadth of those shops. Accordingly, the eviction petition was dismissed.