RAM SARUP BHALLA Vs. BARKAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed by Ram Sarup Bhalla, the landlord, against order dated March 30. 1989, passed by Rent Controller, Ludhiana dismissing his application filed under Section 13-A, of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of the tenant Barkat Singh, respondent, from a house situated in Nigar Mandi, Ludhiana.

(2.) THE petitioner claimed ejectment of respondent on the ground that he had retired from Government service and wanted to occupy the house, which was with the respondent as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 325/- plus house tax. The petitioner retired from government service on October 31, 1985 from the Education Department. He did not own any other house in Ludhiana and was not occupying any-other house in the urban area Ludhiana. The portion of the house in dispute already in possession with him was insufficient and inadequate. Thus, he required the house in dispute for his own and family's use and occupation. The petitioner wanted to start his law practice at Ludhiana. His son, who has completed LL. B. course also was to settle at Ludhiana. His youngest daughter, a student of B. A. required a room for studies. His wife, a chronic patient of arthitities could not go upstairs, thus, he needed the ground floor.

(3.) AFTER permission was allowed to the respondent to contest the petition, he denied relationship of landlord and tenant. The house belonged to Raksha Parbhakar daughter of Karam Chand Parbhakar, the petitioner had no title in the property, the property was rented, out for non-residential purposes and could not be got vacated on the alleged ground of personal necessity. The petitioner did not comply with the necessary ingredients of Section 13 (1) (a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The petitioner was estopped by his act and conduct from filing the application for ejectment. The petitioner filed replication inter alia admitting that originally Raksha Parbhakar was the owner, but he claimed that she was married to him and after her death he succeeded to the property left by her. Thus, he was competent to file the application. The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties :-1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the premises in dispute on the grounds mentioned in the application ? OPA 2. Whether there exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? OPR 3. Relief.