GIRDHARI LAL Vs. VINOD KUMAR MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (ORAL) Landlord has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 17.3.2010 thereby allowing the appeal filed by the tenant (respondent herein), dismissing the eviction petition filed by the landlord (petitioner herein).

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that petitionerlandlord has filed eviction petition against the respondent ? tenant on the ground that landlord requires shop under the tenancy of the tenant for his personal use and occupation to settle his unemployed son and to settle himself in a business, since landlord-petitioner stood retired from the post of Executive Engineer Electricity, Defence Services. Tenant has refuted the claim of the petitioner-landlord. Initially vide judgment and order dated 18.3.2006 passed by Rent Controller Hoshiarpur, eviction petition filed by the landlord was allowed directing eviction of the tenant-respondent.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved from the judgment/eviction order passed by learned Rent Controller dated 18.3.2006, tenant has filed statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 2.8.2007. Tenant, thereafter, filed revision before this Court which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 17.11.2009 on the ground that application moved by the tenant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to place on record additional evidence was not considered by the Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal of the tenant. After the remand, application filed by the tenant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was dismissed, however, appeal filed by the tenant was allowed having observed that unemployed son of the landlord is settled in Italy and landlord is busy with his another son in his Karyana shop in the adjacent shop.