SHIMBU SINGH Vs. JAGDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is preferred by the petitioner (tenant) against the order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Dhuri vide which the ejectment petition filed by the respondent (landlord) under Section 13 of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act (in short "the Act") for the ejectment of the petitioner (tenant) from the demised shop was accepted and judgment dated 11.10.2013 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Sangrur vide which the appeal of the present petitioner (tenant) filed against the abovesaid order of the learned Rent Controller, Dhuri was dismissed.

(2.) THE case of the respondent -herein (landlord) before the learned Rent Controller in concise was that the demised shop was the ownership of his father namely Sunder Singh, which he had inherited after his death in an oral family settlement. Petitioner (herein) was inducted as tenant in the demised shop w.e.f. 12.10.1987 on rent at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month vide a rent note. He sought the ejectment of the tenant from the demised shop on the ground of arrears of rent since he did not pay the rent w.e.f. 01.02.1989 and also for the reason that he requires the said shop for his personal necessity to run jewellery business. Earlier he was serving as Boiler Superintendent in Guru Gobind Singh Super Thermal Plant, Ropar and retired on 31.07.2008. Hence was the instant petition.

(3.) ON notice respondent appeared and took preliminary objections that the petitioner has concealed the material facts from the Court and that alleged rent note is under -stamped and unregistered. Then it is admitted that he took the demised shop on rent from the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month which was enhanced from time to time to the tune of Rs. 960/ - per month and house tax at the rental value of Rs. 3,600/ - per annum. He had paid the said rent upto 31.07.2009 and house tax upto 31.03.2011. It is further his case that the respondent (landlord) did not issue any receipt regarding payment of rent. It is denied that the respondent (landlord) requires the demised shop for his personal necessity to run the jewellery business. Rest of the allegations were also denied by the petitioner (tenant).