M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This petition filed under Sub-section 5 of Section 15 of the East Punjab (Urban Rent Restrictions) Act, 1949 (for brevity `the Code) challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority, Barnala holding that the demised premises are required by the landlady-respondent for her own occupation and use. It has also been found that the necessity of the landlady-respondent is bonafide and is not a mere wish as she required the demised shop for opening a grocery business therein. The analysis of the evidence and the view of the Appellate Authority passed thereon read as under : Amar Kaur, petitioner appeared as AW-1 and stated that her husband was killed, by the extremist, about eight years before her statement. At that time, she had four children. Her eldest child Babu Singh, was aged about 13 years, at that time. His second child Veena Kaur was aged about eight years, at that time. Her third child Rinu Bala aged about five years at that time. Her younger child Nitu, at that time was aged about 1 year. It was, in this view of the matter, that at that time, she rented out the demised premises. It was further stated by her that her