SANT RAM Vs. MEKHU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the time of admission of this revision (C.R. No. 67 of 1967), Shri Sushil Malhotra and Shri R.N. Malhotra appearing in support of the petitioner Sant Ram cited before Andly. J. Panna Lal v. Shri Jagan Nath a decision Falshaw C.J. and Chuhar Mal v. Shri Balak Ran, (Dulat and Pandit JJ.) insupport of their plea for admission of this revision. Shankar.J.felt doubful of the correctness of the view taken in these two decision, with the result that while admitting the revision he directed that the same should be heard after notice by a larger Bench. It is in these circumstances that this revision has been placed before us for final disposal.

(2.) The main question arising for settlement by us relates to the interpretation of section 13(3) (a) (ii'i) of the East PanJab Urban Kent Restriction Act No. 1II of 1949 (hereafter described as the PunJab Act). The provision of law requiring interpretation may now be reproduced :-

(3.) At this stage, it would be helplul to Slate briefly the absolutely essential facts giving rise to the point canvassed. The landlord had applied for eviction of the tenant from the shop in question situated in Middle Bazaar, Simla, under section 13 of the Punjab Act on the grounds:-