LAWS(P&H)-2006-9-58

HARPREET SINGH Vs. SUDERSHAN BERRY

Decided On September 22, 2006
HARPREET SINGH Appellant
V/S
Sudershan Berry Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the tenant against the order of the appellate authority evicting him from the demised premises on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the landlady. The petition filed by the landlady was dismissed by the Rent Controller. However, the appellate authority reversed the findings on bona fide personal necessity of the landlady in appeal.

(2.) THE landlady had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking the eviction of the tenant from the Ground Floor of property bearing No. 11, situated at Lawrence Road, Amritsar. The petition was filed on account of non-payment of rent, diminishing the value and utility of the demised premises as also on bona fide personal necessity. On the ground of bona fide personal necessity it was the case of the landlady that she required the premises for her own use and occupation. She is living in the upper portion of the building. She has to travel 15 steps to reach the First Floor. She was suffering from heart disease and high blood pressure. She was examined by a doctor in the year 1985 who did an E.C.G. of her heart and stated as AW-1 that as per the report of E.G.C. she had some heart problem. It is the landlady's case that she use to get breathless while climbing the stairs and had to take rest by sitting on the stairs for some time. The landlady is approximately 70 years old today when this revision petition has come up for hearing before me. It is therefore her case that at this stage of her life she requires the premises for her own use and occupation.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller the landlady appeared as her own witness and substantiated these averments. This stand was further supported by AW-4 Shri Surinder Kumar Berry, nephew of the landlady as also AW-1 Dr. Surinder Singh Madan, a private practitioner who had conducted the E.C.G. of the landlady in the year 1985. He stated that as per the report she had some heart problem. However, he could not tell the latest position as the E.C.G. was done in the year 1985. However he further stated that at that time she had a heart problem. The report of the E.C.G. was also placed on the record as Ex. A-2 and the receipt as Ex. A-3. On the basis of the aforementioned pleadings and evidence the appellate authority recorded the following findings on the ground of personal necessity :-