HARMANDEEP GAUR Vs. RAJAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in revision against orders of the Courts below by which the eviction petition filed by the landlady on the ground of personal necessity to settle her grandson in the business in the demised premises (shop), has been allowed.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant is that the word "for his own use" in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] would not apply to the requirement of the grandson.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.