Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1534 (PNJ)

Ranjit Singh v. Narinder Kaur

2007-08-23

PERMOD KOHLI

body2007
Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the findings returned by the courts below are contrary to the weight of evidence. According to the learned counsel, the so-called requirement of the landlady is only a device to evict the petitioners, from the shop in question otherwise, she does not need the same for settling her son. He has further submitted that the eviction petition was not maintainable as the respondent herein had earlier filed an Eviction Petition which was dismissed and the second petition has been filed. 4. 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. 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. 5. In view of the above, I find no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. 6. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be allowed one year time to evict the shop in question, as the same is being used for business. However, I am inclined to grant time to the petitioners for eviction of the premises only upto February 28, 2008. The petitioners shall accordingly vacate the premises before or on 28, 2008. The petitioners shall pay the arrears of rent, if any, to the respondent-landlady against a proper receipt of deposit the same before the Rent Controller within a period of one month and continue to pay/deposit the monthly rent by 10th of every English Calendar month. The petitioners will file an undertaking before this Court within three weeks stating therein that they shall vacate the premises by 28.2.2008 and also pay the arrears of rent within a period of one month and monthly rent regularly by 10th of every English Calendar month. The petitioners will file an undertaking before this Court within three weeks stating therein that they shall vacate the premises by 28.2.2008 and also pay the arrears of rent within a period of one month and monthly rent regularly by 10th of every English Calendar month. On failure of the petitioners to do so, the respondent herein shall be entitled to evict the petitioners by enforcing the impugned judgments, and apart from above, the petitioners shall also be liable for contempt or this Court.