Civil Revision No. 6383 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6383 of 2009 Date of decision: 04.08.2010 Smt. Kamla ....Petitioner Versus Kuldip Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This is landlord's petition against the order dated 7.3.2006 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, as affirmed by the learned appellate authority, vide which the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the shop being portion of property measuring 120 sq. yds comprised in khasra No.514/88, 516/88, khata No.467/507 situated in the revenue estate of Taraf Jodhewal, Ludhiana, now known as Gali No.6 Bal Singh Nagar, Ludhiana, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana, stands dismissed. The appellant-landlord sought eviction of the respondent- tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal needs. On payment of rent along with costs and interest, the plea of non-payment of rent was given up. The appellant contested the case on the ground of Civil Revision No. 6383 of 2009 (O&M) -2- personal necessity. The learned Rent Controller as well as the learned appellate authority rejected the plea of bona fide necessity in view of the fact that it was proved on record, that the landlady had other two shops adjoining the shop in dispute, which were vacant and available to the landlady for settling her son. It may also be relevant to mention here, that though the plea of bona fide necessity for setting up the business of son was raised, the son did not appear in the Court in support of the averments made in the petition, to prove his necessity and the only evidence led by the landlady was by examining her attorney i.e. her husband, by claiming that he had special knowledge of the facts and, therefore, was competent to depose. When the case came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, stated that petitioner would be satisfied if the rent is increased. The offer made by the petitioner for enhancement of rent has been accepted by the respondent- tenant and it is agreed as under: - “1. That the rent of the shop shall be increased from Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) per month to Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) per month commencing from 1.8.2010. 2. That the tenant shall be liable to enhance the rent by 10% on expiry of every three years of tenancy.” This revision petition is disposed off in terms of the compromise and the eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for eviction Civil Revision No. 6383 of 2009 (O&M) -3- of the respondent-tenant is dismissed, subject to enhancement of rent to Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) per month with a further stipulation to increase the rent by 10% on expiry of every three years. A sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) representing the rent till August, 2010 has been paid to the petitioner in Court today. The tenant shall continue to pay the rent in advance by 7th of each month in future. Revision disposed off in terms of the compromise. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 04, 2010 R.S.