PERMOD KOHLI,J - (1.) INVOKING revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), landlady has filed this Revision challenging the findings recorded by the Rent Controller, Faridkot and the Appellate Authority dismissing the eviction petition. It is necessary to briefly refer to the facts on record.
(2.) THE petitioner-landlady (hereinafter referred to as "the landlady") filed Eviction Petition under Section 13 of the Act against respondents No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the tenants"). Respondents No. 1 and 2 are the tenants in the shop and gallery situated in Moti Bhur Bazar, Kotkapura bearing Municipal No. B-VI/97. The premises was purchased by the landlady and her husband's brother Sunil Kumar respondent No. 3 in the Eviction Petition from S.S. Jain Sabha. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were tenants under Jain Sabha and after the purchase of property by the landlady and Sunil Kumar, they have attorned them as landlord. The landlady filed the Eviction Petition seeking eviction of the tenants from the demised premises (a shop and gallery) on the ground of personal bona fide need for the use and occupation of her husband, namely, Sandeep Kumar, an Advocate by profession. It is alleged in the Eviction Petition that the husband of the petitioner is an Income Tax Practitioner and is running his Office in a Chaubara in Old Grain Market paying Rs. 500 as monthly rent to the landlord, namely, Amar Singh. The Chaubara is not suitable for his practice same being in dilapidated condition and not fit for human habitation. It is also alleged that the landlord is pressing her husband to vacate the same. Accordingly, she claimed possession of the suit shop and gallery which is said to be in the main bazaar and is suitable for the practice of her husband. It is also mentioned that the family of the landlady comprising of herself, her husband and mother-in-law Kailashwanti is residing at the Chaubara above the shop and it will be convenient for her husband to shift to the shop occupied by the tenants.
(3.) THE tenants contested the Eviction Petition stating that the husband of landlady has very little practice. His office is located on the first floor over the shop in question for the last 2 to 3 years. It is also stated that the husband of the landlady is already running her practice in a Chaubara in the Old Grain Market. The shop is in a congested bazar where there is a lot of traffic and nuisance. Shop is not suitable for the practice of landlady's husband. It has also been stated that the petitioner is drawing handsome salary. Her husband is not dependent upon her. Petitioner and her husband have built a palatial residential house at Partap Nagar, Kotkapura valuing more than Rs. 40.00 Lacs. The allegations in the Eviction Petition that the old Chaubara in the Old Grain Market is not suitable for practice and is in dilapidated condition, have also been denied. Apart from this, the tenants pleaded that the Eviction Petition has been filed to harass them and is a device to evict them from the shop for the purposes of sale. They also alleged that the landlady has initiated number of proceedings against tenants to force eviction. It is mentioned that earlier Mrs. Kailashwanti, mother-in-law of the landlady had filed a suit for redemption of the shop in question, claiming that the tenants were inducted by the mortgagee Gurbajan Singh. The suit was dismissed and the appeals before the District Judge and the High Court also failed. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 Sunil Kumar, the other co-owner of the premises wanted to block the access to the gallery through the stair case and the suit for injunction was filed by the tenants and injunction has been upheld upto the High Court. The suit was decreed on 9.5.1992. It is also alleged that the landlady and Sunil Kumar damaged the roof of the shop in question for which a complaint under Section 427 of the IPC is pending against them. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed following issues :- "1. Whether the applicant requires the disputed shop for practice of her husband as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the site plan is incorrect ? OPR 3. Relief. " ;