RAJINDER PARSHAD Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is in revision against order of the learned Appellate Authority, Ferozepur, by which the application filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act'), for seeking eviction from the shop (demised premises) on the ground of personal necessity has been declined.

(2.) In short, the landlord filed eviction petition in respect of the demised premises, inter-alia, on the ground of personal necessity alleging that he is a retired teacher. His son Parveen Kumar is married and having two children but he is unemployed. He wanted to start business alongwith his son in the demised premises and has got no other shop. It was also pleaded that "the applicant is not in possession of any other commercial site in the commercial area of Ferozepur Cantt since the commencement of the Act". There is no specific denial to the averments made by the tenant because it is only alleged that "para No. 6 of the application is incorrect and hence denied".

(3.) Learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. The learned Appellate Authority has also recorded "it was correctly recorded by the learned Rent Controller that the applicant bonafide requires the demised premises for running business by his son who is not dependant upon him".