SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. KARTAR SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rent revision petition has been preferred by the tenant against the order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated 12.12.2014 by which the eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Rent Act') was allowed, against which the appeal preferred by the present petitioner-tenant was dismissed by order dated 21.05.2015.

(2.) The eviction of the petitioner has been ordered on the ground of bona fide need of the respondent-landlords and for non-payment of rent. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the ground of bona fide need of the respondent-landlords cannot be accepted for allowing the petition for eviction as the same is not in conformity with the term 'requirement' as provided in Section 13 of the Rent Act. The definition of 'Landlord' is only restricted to the owner of the building which they are not as they are only Sub-Power of Attorney holders.

(3.) In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambica Prasad Vs. Md. Alam and another, 2015 1 RCR(Rent) 544 . He, however, admits that the Power of Attorney holder is a landlord for the purpose of receipt of rent as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above.