Alka Sarin DECISION
Alka Sarin, J.
Heard through video conferencing.
1. The present civil revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-tenant against the orders passed by the Authorities below ordering his ejectment from a portion of Industrial Plot No. C-50 Phase-III, Industrial Area, Mohali, measuring 50 sq. ft. (approximately) and 90 sq. ft. (approximately) shown as "ABCD" and "EFGH" respectively in the site plan attached with the ejectment application.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present civil revision petition are that the husband of the respondent-landlady, Sh. Manjit Singh Kwatra, was the owner of Industrial Plot No. C-50, Phase-III, Industrial Area, Mohali. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant by him in a portion of the said plot, measuring 50 sq. ft. (approximately) and 90 sq. ft. (approximately) shown as "ABCD" and "EFGH" respectively in the site plan attached with the ejectment application (the 'demised premises'). The rent of the demised premises was ` 4,410/- per month, excluding water and electricity charges, at the time of filing of the ejectment application. The tenancy was oral and on a month to month basis and the rent was payable in advance by the 7th of each month. The husband of the respondent-landlady expired on 09.05.2015 and, thereafter, the ownership of the industrial plot was transferred in the name of the respondent-landlady in the record of the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) vide its letter bearing Memo No. 37564 dated 02.09.2015. The respondent-landlady, thus, became the owner and landlord of the industrial plot including the demised premises.
3. In November 2016, the present ejectment application was filed by the respondent-landlady seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises on the grounds that he had failed to pay or tender the rent for the demised premises since January 2016 and further that the respondent-landlady bonafidely required the demised premises for her own personal use and occupation and that the respondent-landlady or her son were not occupying any other such building in the urban area of SAS Nagar and had also not vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 in the urban area of Mohali.
4. The ejectment application was contested by the petitioner-tenant contending that the same had been filed to cause harassment and financial loss to the petitioner-tenant by dragging him in unwanted litigation on the basis of false allegations merely to increase the rent of the demised premises. On merits, it was stated that the demised premises were let out to the petitioner-tenant in the year 1998 by the husband of the respondent-landlady and since then he was carrying on the business of flower decoration at a monthly rent of ` 1,000/- per month. It was further the stand taken by the petitioner-tenant in his reply that in the year 2007, the