R.S.MONGIA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Bhupinder Singh, tenant, against the concurrent order and finding of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, by which a finding has been recorded that respondent Harbhajan Kaur (landlady) requires the demised premises for personal need and occupation and on that basis ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises has been ordered.
(2.) LANDLADY Harbhajan Kaur (respondent herein) retired as a Teacher from a primary School on October 31, 1991. The dismissed premises in question i.e, ground floor of house No. 7845/5, situated in Guru Tag Bahadur Nagar, Lehal Colony, Patiala, had been rented out to the petitioner by the landlady. The house is built on a sixteen marla plot. The ground floor consists of two bed rooms, drawing room, dining room, kitchen etc. and almost similar accommodation is on the first floor, which is being occupied by the landlady Harbhajan Kaur. After retirement, she had filed a petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on November 22, 1991, for ejectment of the petitioner as a specified landlord on the ground that she was not owner in possession of any suitable accommodation in the local area, in which she intended to reside. That petition has also been allowed on November 3, 1992. However, against the said order, C.R. No. 3644 of 1992 had been filed by the tenant Bhupinder Singh, Which was admitted and dispossession was stayed. Landlady Harbhajan Kaur filed another petition under Section 13 of the Act on May 8, 1996. The grounds taken were non-payment of rent and personal necessity. So far as the ground by personal necessity is concerned, it was averred in para 5 of the petition as under :- "5. That petitioner is residing on the Ist floor and is aged about more than 62 years and suffering from illness, joint pains and other diseases. The petitioner got operation from U.S.A. and there is a difficulty for the petitioner to go on Ist floor and cannot go easily on Ist floor and come down from Ist floor to the ground floor. The suit property required for the personal use and occupation of the petitioner".
(3.) IT may be observed here that the landlady had claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per mensem and the tenant had denied the same and had averred that the rate of rent is Rs. 300/- per mensem since the premises were let out to him in the year 1982. So far as averments regarding personal necessity are concerned, it was averred as under :- "That the contents of para No. 5 are wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that the claimant is aged 52 years and is suffering from any illness. It is wrong and denied that the petitioner is suffering from joint pain and other diseases. It is wrong and denied that the operation has been performed USA. The petitioner is hale and healthy and her only motive is to get the premises vacated with ulterior motive. It is wrong and denied that the premises is required for personal use and occupation. It is wrong and denied that the petitioner is not in possession of any accommodation except the present one." ;