SURINDER KUMAR GARG Vs. LAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the landlord against the order passed by the Rent Controller, dismissing the ejectment petition of the landlord under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) FACTS in brief are that petitioner landlord, claiming himself to be a specified landlord, filed ejectment petition under Section 13-A of the Act, seeking eviction of the tenant-respondent from the demised premises, on the ground that he required the said shop for his own use and occupation as he bonafide required the said shop to start his business of sale and purchase of two wheelers and other motor parts business. It appears that the respondent- tenant was given leave to contest the petition (as required under Section 18-A of the Act). Thereupon, respondent-tenant had filed written statement controverting the allegations contained in the petition and alleging therein that the landlord had filed two ejectment petitions under Section 13-A of the Act, one against Gurmukh Dass and the other against present respondent-tenant and that he could not recover possession from the respondent-tenant under Section 13-A of the Act, as he could exercise this right only qua one tenant. It was alleged that the petition was not maintainable. It was further alleged that the premises in dispute was a shop and not a residential or scheduled building and as such petition was not maintainable. Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was also denied and it was alleged that the wife of the petitioner had rented out the premises to the respondent, claiming herself to be owner of the premises vide rent deed dated 18.5.1999.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, I find no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Rent Controller. Section 13-A of the Act reads as under :-