Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) C.M. No. 25134-CII of 2015 C.M. is allowed subject to just exceptions. Filing of true typed copies and certified copies of the impugned judgments dated 17.09.2011 and 22.04.2015 passed by the Lower Courts is dispensed with. C.R. No. 8008 of 2015 Challenge in this revision petition is to the order passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar dated 17.09.2011 whereby petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 preferred by the respondent-Amritsar Sewa Samiti (Regd.) has been accepted on the grounds of personal necessity for expansion of Hospital and the nuisance, which was caused by the business being run by the petitioners, namely, the saw machine, appeal against which preferred by the petitioners has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar on 22.04.2015 upholding the order passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar.
(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the premises in question is in possession of the petitioners since long rather a portion of the premises was surrendered by the petitioners for the purpose of extension of the hospital being run by the respondent-Society in the year 1987 and a fresh rent note was executed on 20.01.1987. They continued in the premises in question in their possession. As per the said rent note, the petitioners have been continuing in possession and are regularly paying the rent for the premises used by them. He contends that the saw machine, which had been installed in the demised premises, was/is in use for the last more than 40 years and, therefore, it was known to the respondent that the said premises would be and is being used for the said purpose but still they chose to permit the same in the premises and executed a fresh rent note in the year 1987. He, on this basis, contends that now the plea that it is a source of nuisance and is inconvenient to the respondent, which is running a hospital, cannot be accepted rather they should be stopped from raising such a plea. His further contention is that the respondent has not been able to prove that there is inconvenience and nuisance having been caused by the petitioners while running the saw machine. In the absence of any proof, the said plea cannot be accepted as the onus was on the respondent, who is the applicant/petitioner in the eviction petition. He, on this basis, contends that the orders passed by the authorities below cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance, have gone through the impugned orders.;