RAJINDER SINGH Vs. KIRPAL SINGH BEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DENIAL of leave to the tenant to contest the application for ejectment filed against him by the respondent-Kirpal Singh Bedi, claiming to be a specified landlord under Sections 13 and 18 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is what is sought to be challenged in revision here.

(2.) EJECTMENT has been sought from a room 18' x 9' which was let out to the tenant-Rajinder Singh as a shop where he has ever since been running a cycle repair shop It was the case of the respondent-Kirpal Singh Bedi that he retired from service on February 28, 1989 on attaining the age of superannuation and thus answered to the description of a specified landlord under the Act It was said that the petitioner-Rajinder Singh had been occupying one room out of the property 33 Ward IV, Krishna Gali, Doraha, as a tenant. This room was part of a residential building in the occupation of the respondent, who required the demised premises for his own occupation.

(3.) THE petitioner sought leave to contest the application for ejectment filed against him, by filing an affidavit taking the plea therein that the respondent-Kirpal Singh Bedi was net a specified landlord, in that, the owner threrof was in fact his mother-Gurdial Kaur. It was with the mala fide intention of extracting more rest that he got these premises transferred from mother to his own name.