HARBILAS RAI BANSAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (the Act)- Prior to 1956 - permitted a landlord to evict his tenant from a non-residential building on the ground of bona fide requirement for his own use, however, the said right of the landlord was taken away by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Punjab Act 29 of 1956) (the Amendment) which came into force on September 24,1956.

(2.) The non-residential premises in dispute was given on rent by the appellant's father to the predecessor-in-interest of respondent 2. After the death of appellant's father in the year 1953 the appellant who was in Government service, became owner of the shop. The appellant retired from service in 1986. According to the appellant he is a Registered Medical Practitioner under the Homeopath system of medicines. While he was in service his employer granted him permission in 1976 to practice as Homeopath Physician after office hours. It is the case of the appellant that he intends to start practice as Homeopath Physician and for that purpose he bona fide requires the shop in dispute for his personal use and occupation.

(3.) The relevant provisions of the Act prior to the amendment were as under: