Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) CM No. 20159-CII of 2016 in CR No. 6569 of 2016 Prayer in this application is for permission to place on record Annexures P-1 to P-3, photocopies of Annexures P-2 and P-3 and exemption from filing certified copies of all the Annexures. Application is allowed. The aforesaid documents are taken on record and exemption from filing certified copies of all the Annexures is granted subject to just exceptions. CM No. 21083-CII of 2016 in CR No. 6875 of 2016 Prayer in this application is for permission to place on record Annexures P-1 to P-3, photocopies of Annexures P-2 and P-3 and exemption from filing certified copies of all the Annexures. Application is allowed. The aforesaid documents are taken on record and exemption from filing certified copies of all the Annexures is granted subject to just exceptions. CR Nos. 6569 and 6875 of 2016 By this order, two rent revision petitions i.e. Civil Revision No. 6569 of 2016 titled as Radhika Parshad v. Smt. Akki Bai Oswal Trust (Regd.) and others and Civil Revision No. 6875 of 2016 titled as Jiwan Jhah v. Smt. Akki Bai Oswal Trust (Regd.) and others , which have been preferred by the tenants against the respondent-Trust, who is admittedly the owner and landlord of the demised premises and had filed petitions for eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on the grounds of personal necessity against the petitioner, which have been accepted both by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana and the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, by orders dated 03.11.2014 and 28.07.2016 respectively.
(2.) The counsel for the petitioner has addressed arguments in CR No.6569 of 2016 titled as Radhika Prashad v. Smt. Akki Bai Oswal Trust (Regd.) and others.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner asserts that the property which is being sought to be evicted and in possession of the petitioner is being used for commercial purposes i.e. shop which cannot be got vacated for a non-commercial purpose namely charitable. His further contention is that there is sufficient accommodation available with the respondent, where they can start the proposed vocational courses. The purpose appears to be eviction of the petitioner from the property in dispute as it is in possession of the petitioner since long. Assertion has been made that none of the trustees of the respondent-Trust, who are also parties to the eviction petition, has appeared as a witness, rather one Mohan Lal has appeared as PW-3, who is an attorney and could not depose about the bona fide need on behalf of the respondents. Apart from this, he contends that respondent No.1 was a Charitable Trust which came into existence on 06.07.1955 but thereafter another trust deed dated 09.06.2008 has been executed and got registered by the respondents which is not permissible and, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable as they have not been able to prove the existence and continuation of the Trust after the original trustees have expired. He on this basis contends that the impugned orders passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, dated 03.11.2014 and the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated 28.07.2016, cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.;