- (1.) The tenants are in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which they have been ordered to vacate the shop (demised premises) on the ground of personal necessity of the andlord.
(2.) In brief, respondent No. 1/landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949for short ''the Act''. for eviction of the petitioners from the demised premises which was let out to one Davinder Pal Singh at the monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. The said Davinder Pal Singh died in the month of September 2001 and his tenancy rights were inherited by the present petitioners. The landlord had sought eviction on the ground of personal necessity besides non-payment of rent etc. and the eviction order was passed by the learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 07.03.2009 by observing as under :- 34. I find merits in these arguments of leaned counsel for the petitioner/landlord because room in which the petitioner is stated to be running business is behind the shop in question and the opening of this room is not towards the main road whereas its opening is towards private passage. This room cannot be considered to be an appropriate place for running business. Moreover, there is no evidence from the side of respondent that the petitioner is having a shop of that nature which the tenant is occupying. The shop in question abuts on main road i.e. Jalandhar Road. Moreover, if the petitioner had raised construction above the shop in question that does not diminish the necessity of the petitioner. Moreover, tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord. When this fact is proved on the file that the petitioner had shifted to Hoshiarpur and evidence, which I have discussed above, from that I have come to the conclusion that he has not having any proper place to run his business, so he requires the shop in question for his personal necessity. Accordingly, both these issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
(3.) The appeal was filed only by widow and one daughter of late Davinder Pal Singh. During the pendency of the appeal, they filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908for short ''CPC''. in order to lead additional evidence to prove that the landlord is in possession of a vacant shop. The said application was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority vide its order dated 31.05.2010 after observing as under :- Further much have been sought to be made out of the contentions that there is room situated on the back side of the demised shop but said factum has already been shown by the landlord in his pleadings as well as in the site plan produced by him before the learned Rent Controller. Therefore, when a specific plea has beer taken up by the landlord/respondent that the room on the back side of the shop is not fit for carrying out his business of repair and engineering work, then the evidence sought to be produced by way of additional evidence before this appellate authority is not sustainable.;