NATHU RAM Vs. DAULAT RAM CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority ordering eviction of the tenant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

(2.) A number of grounds were pressed into service under Section 13 of the Act, but the only ground on which eviction has been ordered is that the landlord required the premises bonafide for his personal occupation. Against this decision the present petition for revision has been preferred.

(3.) Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the tenant urges that in view of the fact that the landlord had taken the ground that the premises were unfit and unsafe for human habitation, he could not be permitted to take the ground that he required the same for his personal necessity because ens would cut at the root of the other. I am unable to agree with this contention. In the first place each ground has to be examined on its own merit. In the second place even if the premises are unfit for human habitation the landlord could after getting them vacated convert the same into proper shape for his personal use. In this view of the matter there is no merit in this petition particularly when the decision of the authorities below is based on evidence and no error of law or fact has been committed.