Civil Revision No.3439 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3439 of 2009 Date of decision: July 2, 2009. The Punjab State Handloom Weavers Apex Cooperative Society Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. Smt. Veena Puri ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Ajay Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This revision petition is preferred by the tenant, namely, the Punjab State Handloom Weavers Apex Cooperative Society Ltd and its Manager at Ludhiana, against whom the Rent Controller, Ludhiana has passed an order of eviction dated 4.8.2006 in respect of shop No.16, Goal Market, Model Town, Ludhiana and their appeal against the said order of eviction has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana vide its judgment dated 9.1.2009. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the subject premises was rented out to the Ludhiana Central Cooperative Consumers Civil Revision No.3439 of 2009 -: 2 :- Store, who in turn, without the consent of the landlady, handed over the physical possession of the demised shop to Weavco. The premises was rented out in the year 1966 at the monthly rent of Rs.95/- which was later on increased to Rs.250/-. The original tenant, however, sub-let the premises to Weavco on payment of monthly rent of Rs.400/-. The courts below have further found that the tenant failed to tender the rent despite the opportunity given to do so. Similarly, the plea of the respondent-landlady that she requires the subject shop for her own use and occupation as she wants to run a boutique along with her daughter, has also found favour with the courts below. Resultantly, the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted on all the three grounds, referred to above. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the evidence on record. One of the contentions raised is that during the pendency of appeal, the respondent-landlady, Smt. Veena Puri, has allegedly died in Canada. It is urged that one of the grounds that the premises is required for personal necessity has, thus, disappeared. I, however, do not find any substance in the contention. As may be seen from the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority, the courts below have expressly taken cognizance of the fact that the respondent-landlady wanted to start the boutique along with her daughter. The record further reveals that the daughter of the respondent-landlady, namely, Preeti Puri, is a resident of Ludhiana. The business of boutique can, thus, still be run by the daughter. In any case, it is not the case of the petitioners that there was ever any written consent by the landlady to sub-let the premises by the Consumer Store to Weavco. Sub- letting of the premises by the original tenant in favour of petitioner No.2 by Civil Revision No.3439 of 2009 -: 3 :- itself is sufficient to uphold the eviction order passed by the courts below. No ground to interfere with the impugned orders is made out. Dismissed. July 02, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge