DR. HARDIAL SINGH GILL Vs. GURDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the concurrent findings of the subordinate authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter called the Act) against the dismissal of the application of the petitioner for the eviction of the respondent from the demised premises situated in Chandigarh, as well as his appeal.

(2.) The facts leading to this petition are that the respondent took the premises in dispute on rent from the petitioner for residence and started practice as a Homoeopath in a part of it. The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent on the ground that he has changed the user of the house from purely a residential building by starting practice as a homoeopath. It was also put forward that the petitioner wanted the house for his own use and occupation and that the respondent has not paid the rent.

(3.) The respondent contested the case of the petitioner and took the plea that he was practising as a Homoeopath in this building from the very beginning and he could not be evicted, because the building in question is a scheduled building. The rent was tendered on the first hearing.