BALDEV RAJ Vs. MADHU ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is in revision against the order passed by both the Courts below by which he has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises on a petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (here -in -after referred to as the "Act") on the ground of bona fide necessity of the landlady.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the eviction petition was not maintainable as it has been filed in respect of two separate properties which comprises of a shop and Parchhati. He has also argued that photocopy of the power of attorney has been produced by the son of the landlady which has been relied upon by the Courts below. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the following judgments: -

(3.) INSOFAR as the power of attorney is concerned, the landlady herself has appeared in the witness box as AW5 and also examined her attorney Jatin Anand as AW1 to prove the bona fide requirement. As a matter of fact, much emphasis has been laid on the point that a single eviction petition in regard to two separate properties was not maintainable. None of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.