BHAVNESHWAR DASS GOSAIN Vs. CHHAJJU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Chhajiu Ram filed an application for the ejectment of the petitioner from the house in dispute on the ground that he required it for his married son's residence. This plea was accepted by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority and the order of ejectment was passed against the petitioner. The concurrent finding recorded by both the authorities was not challenged on merit by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, it was urged that the premises in dispute was a non-residential building whereas the ejectment has been passed taking it to be a residential building. for this argument, there is absolutely no material on the record nor there is any such plea in the written statement. The learned counsel relied on the act that the petitioner is described as a tailor master and that he has no other premises for his work except the one in dispute. That may be so but unless there is a plea that the premises in dispute is a non-residential premises it is not possible to entertain such an argument at the revisional stage. This petition, therefore, must fail and is hereby dismissed but tenant is allowed three months time to vacate the premises in dispute. No costs. Revision petition dismissed.