SUNIL BADHAN Vs. TARSEM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 22.04.2011,passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereby his prayer for amendment in the plaint was rejected.

(2.) As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner landlord filed an ejectment application against the respondent-tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent and that the demised shop was required for the petitioner-landlord for his own occupation and use.

(3.) Para No. 3(ii) of the ejectment petition reads thus: That the petitioner is a registered legal practitioner i.e. advocate and the premises is required by the petitioner for his own occupation. There is one more shop which is in occupation of the brother of the petitioner who is doing the business of Gas Agency in the portion shown green in the site plan. This shop is more suitable for opening the office, to start his legal practice. The back side of the premises is residential and the family of the petitioner is residing.