TARSEM LAL Vs. PRITAM DASS KHULLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 27.4.2005, passed by the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Act, for short), whereby the appeal of the tenant- petitioner against the order of his ejectment, passed by the learned Controller on 2.5.2003 has been dismissed.

(2.) THE landlord-respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the shop as detailed in the head note of the petition. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the tenant- petitioner had neither paid nor tendered rent of the shop in dispute to the landlord-respondent w.e.f. 1.3.1993 and thus, was in arrears of rent. Besides, the petitioner is a retired person and requires the shop in dispute for his own personal use and occupation. Insofar as the issue of arrears of rent is concerned, it was found that the tenant-petitioner was not in arrears. However, it was found that the landlord-respondent required the shop in dispute for his personal use and occupation. The said finding of the learned Rent Controller has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority, which is assailed in this revision petition.

(3.) MR . Parveen Kumar, Advocate, has put in a caveat petition and has opposed the revision petition. He has contended that the Authorities under the Act have reached a clear finding of fact that the landlord-respondent requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation. It is contended that the landlord-respondent has retired from Indian Army and then joined the Central Police Organisation from where he has also retired. Now, he has to shift to Dasuya where he is to carry out his own business. He has laid emphasis on the fact that the landlord-respondent has got his gas connection shifted from Bombay to Dasuya and his need is bona fide.