(1.) Instant revision has been filed in terms of Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short to be referred as 'the Act'). The demised shop was rented out to Lachhmi Devi, by Kundan Lal father of the petitioner vide rent note Ex. A-1 dated 20.5.1983 w.e.f. 1.6.1983 on a monthly rent of Rs. 275/-. Lachhmi Devi was using the demised premises for ironing clothes. This premises is a part of the residential house. After death of Lachhmi Devi, the respondent-Sudesh Kumar @ Goga her son engaged in the same profession in the shop in question. After death of Kundan Lal, the property was inherited by his two sons, namely; the petitioner and his brother Madan Mohan. The brothers had partitioned the joint property and subsequent thereto a memorandum of partition, copy of which is Ex. A-2 was executed between them. Room Nos. 6 to 10 as per the site plan Ex. A-3 came to the share of the petitioner and room No. 10 is the demised shop in occupation of the respondent as tenant. There is no dispute now with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as concluded by the Courts below and also that the rent as claimed was tendered on the first date of hearing.
(2.) The controversy is confined only to the ground of eviction that the premises is required for bona fide need and occupation of the petitioner for opening stationery shop for his elder son Kuldip Kumar, who had passed 10+2, at the time of filing of eviction petition in the year 2005. That wife of the petitioner would be assisting his son in run-rang the stationery shop. The other ingredients as specified in sub-clauses (b) and (c) of Section 13(3) of the Act were also pleaded.
(3.) The petition was contested by the respondent. It was stated that son of the petitioner was studying at Moga, whereas the petitioner himself was employee of Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB). It was even averred that earlier also an application for eviction was filed and the same was dismissed.