- (1.) These five civil revision petitions by the tenants are directed against their eviction orders dated 28.2.2014 of the Rent Controller, Patiala under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter mentioned as the Rent Act) affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 19.8.2014.
(2.) Though grounds of non-payment of rent and of personal necessity had been taken for eviction of the tenants but ground of non-payment of rent was decided in favour of the tenants, whereas ground of personal necessity was concurrently held by both the authorities below against the tenants and in favour of the landlord-Bank.
(3.) The landlord is the Patiala Central Co-operative Bank, Topkhana More, Patiala and had sought eviction of the tenants, interalia, on the ground of personal necessity, claiming, that expansion of its banking business had necessitated re-construction of the entire building after demolishing the old one where in the front portion, the shops in dispute under possession of the tenants were located. It was further explained that a big hall was to be constructed in the front so that business of the petitionerbank is suitably expanded as the landlord-bank was finding it difficult to flourish as its only approach was from the side lane. It was, thus, explained that the building presently in occupation of the landlord was insufficient for carrying out its expanding business of banking and was no more suitable for running its business in the back portion, as the shops under possession of the tenants were located in the front portion causing hindrance to the expansion of the business. Thus, ground of personal necessity for use and occupation of the landlord was taken explaining therein that the entire building including the portion of the shops in front after demolition was to be re-constructed in the shape of a big hall.;