INDER SAIN Vs. GIAN CHAND MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in revision here with regard to the ejectment of the tenant, sought by the landlord, on the ground that the demised premises were required by him for use as office or consulting room for his son for practice as a lawyer at Chandigah.

(2.) A reference to the material on record shows that there is, in this behalf the statement of the landlord P. W. 1 Inder Sain to the effect that his son Suman Kumar Chhabra was practicing as a lawyer on the Income Tax aside and was a member of the Bar Association. Exhibit P. 1, a copy of the certificate issued by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, to show that said Suman Kumar Chhabra had been enrolled as an Advocate was also placed on the record. It was further stated by him that the demised premises were required for the setting up of an office, consulting room for his son and that he did not own any other house' in Chandigarh nor had he vacated any such house or other building.

(3.) NEXT there is a testimony of P. W. 2 Harbans Singh Jaison, of 2170, Sector 15, Chandigarh, who deposed that the son of the landlord had been residing with him for the 1 year and was practising on the sales tax and income tax side, it was also his statement that Suman Chhabra had set up an office in his house too.