LAXMI NARAIN Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord sought eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground that he needed the premises for his bonafide use and occupation. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition on the ground that the landlord had vacated another portion of the some building in which the demised portion is located, in the year 1965, without any reasonable excuse and therefore, he did not satisfy the requirements of Section 13(3) (a) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act). The Appellate Authority set aside the order and ordered ejectment on the ground that the Act became operative in the cantonment area of Jullundur from 1969 and since the landlord had vacated the premises in his possession in 1965, so, that would not adversely effect the claim of the landlord on the ground that he vacated another building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act in the said urban area. The Appellate Authority held so on the strength of notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence vide No. S.R.O. 7 published on 21st November, 1949 which notification envisaged enforcement of the Act from the date of the notification This notification however, stood superseded by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence notification No. S.R. O. 55, published on 24th January, 1974. This notification modified the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, It substituted the following sub-section (3) for sub-section (3) of section I of the Act :

(2.) As regards the assertion that the wife of the landlord was not keeping well. it may be observed that the wife, who is not keeping well, surely would trot require more than one room. She has to live with her husband in the room, in which she had been living earlier. She is not said to be suffering from any infectious or virulent disease Evidence was led to show that she was somewhat paralytic. If such is the case, then she would require the constant presence of her husband more than when she is not in that state, which would be possible if she continues to share the room with her husband as had been the case prior to the filing of the ejectment application.

(3.) For the reasons aforementioned, this revision petition is allowed but with no order as to costs and the judgment and decree of the Court below are get aside.