JAGAN NATH Vs. THE SANGRUR CENTRAL CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has arisen out of the petition filed by Jagan Nath under Section 13 for ejectment of the respondent, with the allegations that the building in dispute is a residential house which was let out to the respondent in the year 1964 at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- for a period of one year and that the respondent, after the expiry of the said period, is a statutory tenant. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the landlord required the said house for the use of his son who was a practising lawyer at Barnala and was married in the year 1968.

(2.) Aggrieved thereby, the respondent went in appeal before the learned Appellant Authority. Pending that appeal, the landlord moved an application for permission to amend his application so as to plead the necessary ingredients as required under Section 13(3) of the Act. The application was allowed vide order dated February 19, 1976 and after filing of the amended application, the tenant was called upon to file his reply. In this written statement, apart from reiterating the earlier pleas, the tenant pleaded that the building in dispute was a non-residential building in which the tenant Bank was running its banking business from the very inception of the tenancy. The landlord filed the replication to the written statement to plead that the demised premises were constructed to be used as residential building and it was given to the tenant for the same purpose. It was further pleaded that the tenant has changed the user without the consent of the landlord and was, therefore, liable to eviction on this ground also. In view of the amended pleadings, the Appellate Authority framed three additional issues two of which are only relevant for the purpose of this petition and read as under :-

(3.) The legality of the impugned judgment has been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on two grounds, namely that the tenant could not be permitted in law to take a new and contradictory plea in the written statement filed to the amended petition and that the building in dispute being essentially a residential building could not be held to be non-residential because it has been let out or used for some time for a non-residential purpose.