OM PARKASH Vs. SHIV DUTT PRASHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed an application under Section 13-A, of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amended.

(2.) ACCORDING to the landlord Shiv Dutt Pr0ashar, (now deceased) he was a "specified landlord", whereas Om Parkash. petitioner. was a tenant in respect of the rooms for the last many years at the rate of Rs. 50/ per month and was also in arrears of rent with effect from February 1, 1986. According to him, he was is service in the Indian Railways and retired in July, 1977. Since he did riot owe and possess any suitable accommodation in Hoshiarpur where he intended to reside, the two rooms, the verandah and the kitchen bad fallen to his share in the family partition. They are a part and parcel of the residential building. They were being used as such by him, Be could not enjoy the remaining rooms in his possession in the absence of the two rooms, in dispute, for the purpose of his considerce; hence he filed the ejectment application on November 17, 1986.

(3.) THE tenant was allowed the permission to contest the application. In the written statement, be denied the allegations made in the ejectment application The learned Rent Controller found that the deceased Shiv Dutt Prashar, was a "specified landlord", within the meaning of Section 2 (hh) of the aforesaid Act; hence he was entitled to maintain the ejectment application for the demised premises. The plea of the tenant that the demised premises were given for running a school and, therefore, they could not be held to be residential one, was negatived, on the ground that they were an integralpart of the large part of the building and, therefore, they did not lose the basic character of the residential building simply became its two rooms have been used for commercial purpose for a long time by the tenant and the landlord acquiesced to it In view of these findings, the eviction order was passed on May 7, 1988.