SATPAL VIJAY KUMAR Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(5) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 assailing the order dated 8.9.2009 passed by Appellate Authority Patiala, thereby directing the eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord having observed that landlord requires the demised property for his personal use and occupation.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that Respondent landlord herein preferred an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the revisionist-tenant from the demised shop on the ground that tenant has neither paid nor tendered the rent of the demised shop since 1.4.2005 till the date of filing of eviction petition, despite repeated demands; landlord bonafidely requires the shop for his personal use and occupation as he intends to run a business of Karyana Merchant in the same after vacating from the tenant. Revisionist had refuted the claim of the landlord-Respondent by way of filing written statement.

(3.) Before the Rent Controller entire rent was tendered on the first date of hearing, hence, learned rent Controller has dismissed the eviction Petitioner having observed that tenant is not in arrears of any rent. Learned Rent Controller in paragraph No. 20 of the judgment observed as under: