- (1.) This revision petition is directed against order dated 17.08.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Authority (Fast Track Court), Amritsar, by which application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short "CPC"] by the landlady for amendment of the eviction petition in order to change the nature of necessity in the grounds of eviction originally pleaded, has been declined.
(2.) The Petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] in order to evict the Respondent from the demised premises (shop) being a part of Building No. 54, Punjab Roadways Colony, Islamabad, Amritsar which was allegedly rented out @ '200/- per month. The ejectment was sought, inter alia, on the ground of personal necessity which was pleaded as under: that the applicant requires the shop in dispute for his own use and occupation as his only son has completed his graduation and wanted to settle her only son by starting some business in the shop in dispute.
(3.) The learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, vide his order dated 10.11.2006, dismissed the eviction petition on all counts and while recording the finding with regard to personal necessity observed as under: 42. The authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand because the facts of the case referred are different from the facts of the case in hand. Firstly for the reasons that in the present case the applicant required the premises for her own use also. But this fact has neither proved nor any evidence to that effect has been led on the file rather it has come on record that applicant herself is old lady and is doing house hold work. Secondly, there is no cogent evidence on the record to prove that son of the applicant was doing business with his father for about five years and has experience of five years at his back. Thirdly, son of the applicant who was a graduate at the time of filing of the petition has completed LL.B. and has entered into practices. Further his father with whom he had temperamental difference had already expired during the pendency of the petition. It is also an admitted fact that his father was working on the first floor of the house prior to his death and no body is looking after his work. So the question of temperamental difference, if any, is also not there though this fact was also out of the pleadings. The evidence of Assistant of the employment exchange is of no help to the Petitioner because the son of the applicant gave information prior to the filing of the petition and thereafter as I have already mentioned above that he has completed his LL.B. and started practice. Moreover, it is not a material evidence that if some body name is reflecting in the employment exchange it means that he is unemployed. Rather this fact shows that he never intended to start the business of furniture and wanted to get the employment through employment exchange. Moreover, it was not brought on record by the applicant that after the death of his father he is doing any sort of work in the place where his father was doing the furniture work besides proving the source for the business.;