BANARSI DASS - LANDLORD Vs. SURRINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petitioner is the landlord and this petition has arisen out of proceedings taken by him for eviction of the respondent from the shop situate within the limits of Jullundur (hereinafter called the shop) under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) His case that the shop was let out for 11 months to the respondent on June 14.1.1948 at monthly rental of Rs. 65/-. He sought his eviction on the grounds that he fell in arrears of the rent with effect from September 30, 1970 and had not paid the same, that he had committed acts which had impaired materially the value and utility of the shop, that he had ceased to occupy it (the shop) for a continuous period of about 2 years, that he (the petitioner) required the shop for his own use and the respondent did not require it any longer. The respondent paid the arrears of rent, interest thereon and costs assessed by the Rent Controller on the first date of hearing and, as such, the petitioner dropped the ground of non-payment of rent. The respondent admitted the tenancy but controverted the other material allegations of the petitioner and raised various pleas which gave rise to the following issues :

(3.) The only ground which was pressed before the Rent Controller and agitated before the Appellate Authority for seeking eviction of the respondent from the shop was that the respondent had ceased to occupy the shop for a period of about two years. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority returned verdict on that matter against the petitioner. The said finding is of fact. The revisional jurisdiction available to this court under sub-section (5) of section 15 of the Act is limited. It is legality or propriety of the orders recorded by the Appellate Authority and the Rent Controller that can be examined in this revision. The extent 'legality is' in my opinion, to examine whether the said orders were passed beyond the jurisdiction or against law. The jurisdiction of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority to record the said finding is indisputable. It was not maintained, and nothing could be shown, that the aforesaid finding, recorded by them was contrary to law.