RANI Vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the landlady against concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority dismissing a petition filed by her under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking the ejectment of the respondents-tenants from the demised premises as also a first appeal filed by her.

(2.) IT is the case of the landlady that the demised premises which has now been converted into a house and shop by two tenants was previously owned by her mother Smt. Daropti Devi wd/o Harnam Singh. Her mother executed a Will dated 09.02.1992 in her favour and thus now she is owner of the demised premises. It is her case that initially the house had been let out only to respondent No. 1 Sant Ram at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month. The house had three storeys. Respondent no. 1 subsequently sub let the ground floor to respondent no. 2 by converting the same into a shop. It was further her contention that the respondent had demolished one storey without the consent of the applicant. She had claimed the eviction of the respondents from the said premises on the grounds of non payment of rent, that the respondent had diminished the utility of the house by demolishing the portion of the same, that the property has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation; that respondent no. 1 had sublet the shop to respondent no. 2 and also that the demised premises are required for the purpose of bona fide personal necessity of the landlady to enable her to live within the Municipal Corporation Amritsar. The Rent Controller did not find any merit in any of the grounds set up by the landlady. In the first appeal filed by her she only pressed the ground of bona fide personal necessity. However she failed even on that ground in the first appeal.

(3.) IT is the case of the landlady that she is serving in the office of Municipal Corporation at Amritsar. She is however residing at Raja Sansi. She has therefore to come everyday in the morning to attend to her duty and go back in the evening. She has thus to cover a distance of about 18 K.M. one way. She further contended that she required the demised premises for her own use and occupation as she wishes to settle in the same. As a result she could conveniently attend to her job without having to commute such a long distance. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent no. 2 contended that the applicant has a matrimonial dispute with her husband. She is not living with him. It is therefore that she is living in Raja Sansi where her brothers also reside. It is therefore their case that she is well settled at Raja Sansi living in the security of her brothers and the plea of the bona fide personal necessity is only a pretext to evict the respondents from the demised premises.