RAMAN MITTAL Vs. MANGAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is in revision against order of the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar dated 04.08.2008 by which application filed by the landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] has been allowed and the tenant has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises (shop).

(2.) THE case set up in this revision is that the landlord has filed applications under Section 13-B of the Act against the two tenants although he could exercise his right only for once in respect of one premises, therefore, the petition under Section 13-B of the Act could not have been filed and the landlord, at the most, could have filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act. From the zimni orders passed by this Court, I have found that the decision in this case was deferred to await the decision of the Apex Court on the question of law as to whether the eviction petition is maintainable against the two tenants occupying two different shops in the same building. Ultimately, this revision petition was admitted on 18.01.2010 as the counsel for the parties stated that though the matter under consideration of the Apex Court has been disposed of, but it has to be argued independently of that decision, yet the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is again with regard to the same issue which has been mentioned here-in-above.

(3.) NO other point has been raised.