CHARANJIT SINGH Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-landlord filed a plea, for the ejectment of the tenant (petitioner herein) from the tenanted premises by resort to the provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) The petitioner-tenant applied for leave to defend the proceedings aforementioned. Leave was declined by the learned Rent Controller, vide impugned order, by noticing that all the statutory requirements conceived in terms of provisions of the Section 13-B of the Act have been fulfilled by the respondent. It was also noticed that the presumption arising in favour of the bonafide character of the ejectment demand raised by the respondent-landlord had not been rebutted by the petitioner-tenant by production of any cogent material and documentation. While noticing a plea that the adjacent shops owned by the respondent have been demolished with an intention to force the petitioner-tenant to vacate the tenanted premises, the learned Rent Controller observed that "it cannot be believed that the petitioner is demolishing the shop with an intention to cause damage to the shop in dispute and to get it vacated from the respondent."

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant argues that negativing of the plea raised in terms of the provisions of Section 18-A of the Act was inappropriate inasmuch as there were indeed no grounds for the Rent Controller to hold that there were no pleas worth being contested at the trial. In support of the averment, it was argued that there are photographs available on record to prove that adjacent shops owned by the respondent- landlord had been demolished. It is apparent therefrom, the argument proceeded, that the only purpose of respondent-landlord is to cause damage to the tenanted premises in order to force the petitioner-tenant to vacate it.