(1.) The question involved in this revision petition is "whether a person merely assisting/helping his father in his business in the tenanted premises would be deemed to have occupied the said premises even though it is vacated by his father on account of closer of his business and is thus precluded from seeking eviction of his own tenant on account of his personal need on the ground that he had vacated the earlier premises in his possession."
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the tenant for getting Booth No.22, Sector-47D, Chandigarh vacated on the ground of personal necessity. The demised premises was let out by Kanta Devi Mahajan to the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.400/- excluding electricity and water charges by executing a rent note for 11 months on 15.07.1979 for the purpose of running hair cutting saloon. Gradually with the passage of time, due to yearly increase, the rent of the demised premises came to be Rs.850/- per month excluding electricity and water charges, Kanta Devi Mahajan transferred her ownership rights of demised premises by way of registered gift deed dated 14.11.2002 in favour of the landlord. The landlord filed the eviction petition on 09.12.2002 alleging that he is 26 years of age, unemployed graduate, wanted to start his business of wholesale and retail of stationery in the demised premises and categorically alleged in paragraph 6 of the eviction petition that he does not occupy any other commercial building in the urban area of Chandigarh and has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause, after the commencement of the Act, in the urban area of Chandigarh. In reply, the tenant disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant with the present landlord and para 6 of the eviction petition was simply replied as "wrong and hence denied."
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-