SATPAL SHARMA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT Satpal Sharma having lost before both the Authorities below has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, the Act). Respondent-landlord Vijay Kumar filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act against the tenant-petitioner seeking ejectment of the tenant from the demised shop on various grounds. However, only the ground of requirement of the demised shop for business of Ranjit Singh younger son of the landlord is relevant for the decision of this revision petition. Ejectment of the tenant-petitioner has been ordered by the Authorities below on the said ground. CR No.2688 of 2012 -2-

(2.) LANDLORD alleged that his younger son Ranjit Singh needed the demised shop for carrying on his business.

(3.) LEARNED Rent Controller, Khanna vide order dated 01.03.2011 ordered ejectment of the tenant from the demised shop on the ground of personal necessity thereof for son of the landlord, while negativing the other grounds of ejectment pleaded by the landlord. Tenant preferred appeal against order of the Rent Controller. Landlord also filed cross-objections in the said appeal. LEARNED Appellate Authority, Ludhiana vide order dated 01.03.2012 dismissed the appeal of the tenant as well as cross-objections of the landlord. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant has filed this revision petition.