SHASHI BALA Vs. NIRMALA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed by a tenant, who has been ordered to be evicted from Booth No.135, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh. Landlady Nirmala Devi, respondent herein, filed the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the Booth, referred to above. The said Booth is on a monthly rent with the petitioner and the eviction of the petitioner was sought on the ground that the same is needed for bona fide need by the respondent-landlady and also on the ground that the petitioner had ceased to occupy the said Booth. The allegation of non-payment of rent was also made. In response to notice issued, the petitioner filed reply and alleged that the petition was filed to harass her. Reference is made to the earlier petition filed by the respondent landlady on the ground of change of user and sub-letting, which had been dismissed. It is further pleaded that respondent is of 75 years of age and there would be no question of doing any business which would show the ground of personal necessity. On the basis of pleadings, various issues were framed. Respondent-landlady examined Rakesh Jain, Inspector, Income Tax as PW-1, Yogeshwar Sharma, Clerk in the office of Excise and Taxation Department, U.T. as PW-2 and Janak Singh, Clerk in the Electricity Department as PW-3. The husband of the respondent also stepped into the witness box as PW-4 in support of the grounds of ejectment as pleaded in the rent petition. The petitioner-tenant herself appeared as a witness and also examined Om Parkash and Mangat Ram, her employees and closed her evidence.

(2.) The Rent Controller as well as Appellate Court, after appreciation of the evidence, directed eviction of the petitioner and that is how she has filed the present revision petition.

(3.) Mr.Amit Jain appearing for the petitioner would first refer to a fact that earlier two eviction petitions filed by the landlady were dismissed, against which she had filed revision petitions before this court. The eviction in these petitions was sought on the ground of sub-letting, which was disbelieved. The allegation of change of user was also disbelieved. When the pendency of revision petitions against the said orders was pointed out, the respondent had withdrawn these revision petitions. From this, the learned counsel would build his case to say that in fact there is no bona fide need of the Booth for personal use as alleged in the present petition and this would be indicative from filing of different petitions one after the other.