RAM NATH Vs. HARBHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine will dispose of Civil revisions No. 3781 of 1987 and 1353 of 1988. having arisen from the same order of the Real Controller, dated 9.11.1987 declining the ejectment of the respondent tenant.

(2.) The petitioner landlord sought the ejectment of the respondent under Section 13(A) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), inter alia contending that contending that he was a specified landlord as he had retired from service in the Punjab National Bank, on 31.10.1983. He did not own or possess any other suitable accommodation at Dhuri, he intended to shift his family from Patiala the sunam on account of his bad health and further to manage his agricultural and commercial properties at Sunam. It was also claimed that he did not own or prossess any other suitable accommodation at Sunam.

(3.) The respondent-tenant refuted the claim of the petitioner-landlord of being a specified landlord. It was again vehemently denied that the landlord did not possess any other suitable accommodation. It was claimed that he was in possession of one room out of the three rooms of the demised premises and 5/6 other rooms. It was claimed that the applications was not bona-fide inasmuch as the landlord was stated to be in possession of one room out of demised premises and 5/7 other rooms were lying vacant. It was denied that the landlord was not in possession of any other suitable accommodation at Sunam.