- (1.) Instant civil revision has been filed by the tenants impugning the judgment dated 24.04.2014 passed by learned Rent Controller, Samana and 10.05.2016 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Patiala whereby ejectment has been ordered under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the grounds that the premises are bona fide required for personal use and occupation of the landlady as her son has grown up; that the demised shop has become unsafe and unfit and required re-construction from its foundation. Facts: In brief, the facts relevant for disposal of the revision are to the effect that the petitioners-tenants were inducted as tenants in the demised shop by Sh. Ashok Kumar, the then owner of the demised shop and they executed a rent note in favour of Sh. Ashok Kumar inasmuch as the tenancy had commenced from Ist July, 1988. The rate of rent was settled @ Rs. 11,500/- per annum which was payable half yearly in advance against receipt. It was agreed by the tenants that they will not make any addition or alteration and would not change the existing condition of the shop, besides that they would run the business within the demised shop.
(2.) It was also agreed that they would not sublet the shop to any other person and to pay the house tax or any other local tax. The aforesaid Sh. Ashok Kumar had sold the demised shop along with some other property adjoining the demised shop to respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide different sale deeds. Respondent No.1 herein has been receiving the rent of the demised shop from the petitioners-tenants against receipt being landlady of the demised shop. The landlady sought eviction of the tenants on the ground that the present petitioners-tenants are not running any business in the demised shop, rather using the same as godown, therefore, the same is lying closed. The roof of the shop has become weaker and bent down in the middle. The plaster of the roof from inside of the shop has left its place at many places. The walls of the shop have also got weakened and cracks have developed in the walls. The demised shop has become unfit and unsafe and, therefore, requires reconstruction from its foundation after demolishing the same. It is also pleaded by the landlady that she has a joint family and grown up children which include a married son namely Gagan Mital, who along with respondent No.2 herein is running business in the shop, which is situated on the back side of the demised shop, under the name and style of M/s Roop Kitchens Collection. The said firm is a partnership concern consisting of the respondent No.1-landlady, her son Gagan Mittal besides respondent No.2 along with his wife Mrs. Neeru Mittal, as its partner. Since son of respondent No.1-landlady has grown up and they want to run separate business as such respondent No.1 is desirous of separating her son's business and for that purpose she requires demised shop for running business of her son independently after getting it separated from respondent No.2, therefore, the demised shop is required for fulfilling the bona fide necessity of respondent No.1-landlady. Written Statement:
(3.) Upon notice, the tenants (petitioners herein) put in appearance and filed written statement taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts. On merits, it was admitted that they were inducted as tenants by Ashok Kumar and house-tax and other taxes were paid by them. It was denied that the demised shop is lying vacant. It was further averred in the reply that the landlady has constructed a new shop at the back of the demised shop and she often keeps the drainage of the terrace water blocked intentionally which results into accumulation of water on terrace. The landlady also throws and stores waste utensils over the terrace merely with a purpose to cause damage to the roof of the shop in dispute. The landlady has another shop and the same is lying vacant. She can use the said shop for running the business of her son. Other averments in the petition have been denied.;