RAJINDERPAL SINGH Vs. MELA RAM (DECEASED) TH. LRS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present judgment shall dispose of CR-8412-2016 & CR-450- 2017, since the order impugned, of the Appellate Authority, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the 'Act'), is the same. However, for dictating judgment, facts have been taken from CR-8412-2016 titled Rajinderpal Singh Vs. Mela Ram (Deceased) th. LRs.

(2.) Challenge in the present revision petitions is to the order dated 30.11.2013, whereby the Rent Controller, Patiala ordered eviction from both the shops in question, of two tenants who are the petitioners herein, on the ground of personal necessity of the grandson, namely, Litesh Kumar.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner(s) has vehemently submitted that the pleadings, as such, would go on to show that there was lack of bona fide intention on the part of the respondent-landlord as specific plea, as such, has been taken that the grandson was unemployed. Reference is made to the cross-examination of the witness to show that the said grandson was an Income Tax assessee and was showing income from M/s. Assa Nand Mela Ram and that 12/15 workers were working, which the said grandson had admitted in the cross-examination, which was conducted in 2010-11. It is, accordingly, submitted that the bona fide aspect, as such, is missing and therefore, this Court, in revisional jurisdiction, should interfere, in the facts and circumstances.