- (1.) Cm No.184-C of 2013 This is an application filed by the applicant-appellant, seeking condonation of a delay of 79 days in refiling the appeal. For the reasons stated in paragraphs 3 to 6 of the application, it is allowed and the delay of 79 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. RSA No.64 of 2013 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondentplaintiff, seeking ejectment of the appellant-defendant from a shop situated in a village which is not covered under the purview of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The learned Courts below, after appraising the evidence, have found that eventually, in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it amounted to a lease from month to month and that with the respondent-plaintiff not wanting the lease to continue, there would be no reason to allow the appellant-defendant to continue to occupy the premises.
(2.) As regards recovery of Rs.45,000/- sought in the suit by the plaintiff, it was found that no cogent evidence had been led and only Rs.100/- per month was found deficient in the rent paid, which was ordered to be paid by the appellant-defendant to the plaintiff, for the period from May 2002 till February 2004, along with simple interest @ 6% per annum till 10.12.2003, and thereafter, @ 9% per annum, till full and final payment was made.
(3.) Mr.Gurcharan Dass, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the respondent-plaintiff could not prove any necessity as was pleaded by her, to get the appellant-defendant evicted from the shop, the occupation of which by the appellant, on rent, was not denied. He further submits that, in fact, the respondent-plaintiff has even sold the shop thereafter, vide a sale deed dated 10.5.2015. As such, he submits that there was, obviously, no personal necessity of the respondentplaintiff.;