VINOD KOHLI Vs. KEEMTI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioner/landlord under Sec. 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, challenging the judgment dtd. 4/9/2017 passed by the Additional District Judge/Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, whereby rent appeal filed by the respondent/tenant has been allowed and the eviction petition filed by the petitioner/landlord has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts, as mentioned in the pleadings, are that the petitioner filed a rent eviction petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), asserting therein that he is the owner and landlord of the premises in question. The respondent has been in possession of the premises as a tenant under the petitioner on the rent at the rate of Rs.200.00 per month. The respondent-tenant has not been paying the rent since the year 2008, therefore, he is liable to be evicted. Secondly, the petitioner was in requirement of the premises for his personal use and occupation because his son, namely Raghav Kohli was unemployed and aged about 22 years. The petitioner wanted his son to run independent business on the premises in question. The premises in question opens in the house of the petitioner and thus is suitable for opening the business for his son. To meet the requirements of the Act, he also pleaded in the petition that the petitioner was not in possession of any other vacant premises for business of his son in the same urban area nor had he vacated any such building in the said urban area after commencement of the Act.

(3.) Finding the case of the petitioner to be substantiated, the Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition. Aggrieved against the same, the respondent-tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The said appeal has been allowed; thereby; denying eviction. Hence, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner-landlord.