CHETU RAM Vs. ASA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been; filed in the following circumstances. An application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act was filed by Asa Nand, the landlord, (vm -poriderii in: this Court)' for ejectment of Chetu Ram (Petitioner before me) from a house situated at Panipat. According to the landlord, the house in dispute had been transferred to him by the Rehabilitation Authorities with effect from 1st October, 1955, and conveyance deed was executed on 23rd November, 1959. Chetu Ram was a tenant of the premises in dispute under the Custodian on a monthly rent of Rs. 2. It was pleaded that Chetu Ram had become Asa Nand's tenant with effect from 1st October, 1955, and that the former had also received an intimation from the office of the District Rent and Managing Officer. Ejectment was sought on three grounds, viz., (a) that Chetu Ram had been in arrears of rent from 1st October, 1955; (b) that the premises were required by Asa Nand for his own occupation and (c) that Chetu Ram had damaged the house and had impaired its value and utility with the result that it was unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

(2.) THIS petition was resisted by Chetu Ram, who pleaded ignorance about the transfer of the premises to Asa Nand and also urged that the premises in question were not a residential house but a shop and was also being used as such since a long time. It was further pleaded that rent was being paid to the Custodian at the rate of Re. 1 per month per shop and that the tenant had not received any intimation from the Department about the transfer of the premises in favour of Asa Nand. It was, in addition, pleaded that Asa Nand could only be entitled to arrears of rent for the preceding three years, i.e., from 1st July, 1957 to 30th June, 1960, which would amount to Rs. 72 and that the same was deposited in Court after becoming aware of the proceedings for ejectment. Rent prior to 1st July, 1957, was pleaded to have become barred by time. The plea that Asa Nand required the premises for his own occupation was controverted and so were the three other pleas in support of the prayer for ejectment.

(3.) ON the pleadings, the Rent Controller framed the following issues: