JIT RAM Vs. FAQUIR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decisions of the Courts below have been challenged in this revision petition by the tenant only on 5the ground that the landlord-respondent Thad not pleaded and proved that he had not vacated any residential building within the urban area in question after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The relevant paragraph of the amended application for eviction dated 7-11-1975, which had been taken notice by the appellate authority in its judgment, is in the following terms :-

(3.) That the landlord had not vacated any residential building after the commencement of the Act is clear from his testimony, in which he mentioned that for the last 30 years he had resided in village Panj Garain sad had not vacated any residential building in Kot Kapura during that period. It appears that the petition was got admitted by suppressing the factum of the amended petition and, perhaps, it was for that very reason that the ex parte stay granted to the petitioner was later on vacated when true facts were brought to the knowledge of the Court.