RANJIT SINGH Vs. NARINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is filed against the judgment dated 9.5.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby judgment dated 16.3.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Patiala has been affirmed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the respondent herein filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act before the Rent Collector, Patiala, for eviction of the petitioners herein from the shop in question. The eviction of the petitioners was sought on two counts firstly on account of non-payment of rent and secondly on account of personal necessity of the landlady for the use of her son. The Rent Controller, on the basis of the evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that the shop in question is needed by landlady for settling her son to the business of the photography. It also returned a specific finding that the present petitioners/tenants have an alternative business. The Appellate Court also concurred with the findings and affirmed the judgment or the trial Court vide its judgment dated 9.5.2007 which is under challenge in the present revision.

(3.) I have gone through the judgments of the courts below impugned in the present revision. There is abundance or evidence on record to establish that the son of the landlady needs the disputed shop. He was earlier employed in the Municipal Committee and left the job two years before the filing of the eviction petition and engaged himself in the business of photography. He is doing his business of photography for the last three years and has acquired sufficient experience and intends to carry on this business in the disputed shop. It has also come on record that the petitioners/tenants have alternative business, though it is claimed that the business is run by the son of petitioner No. 2. No material has been brought on record to show that the other business is independently run by the son of petitioner No. 2. So far as the maintainability of the second eviction petition is concerned, the courts below have found that there is change of circumstances after the decision in the earlier ejectment petition. In view of the above circumstances, there is no factual or legal infirmity in the impugned judgments. The findings of the courts below also cannot be said to be against the weight of the evidence. No interference is warranted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.