SARUP SINGH Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents filed this petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises on the ground that the same was required for their personal occupation. It was further pleaded that at present Om Parkash along with his wife and four children, was residing in one room of a house belonging to one Ram Sarup as a licensee and the same was wholly insufficient for his needs. The petitioner opposed the petition and controverted the plea that the respondents required the demised premises for their occupation. It was further pleaded that the present accommodation in their possession was sufficient for their needs. The Rent Controller upheld the plea of the respondents and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner. Its order having been affirmed in appeal, the present revision has been filed by the tenant.

(2.) ONE of the pleas taken by the tenant was that the earlier petition filed by the respondents on the same cause of action having been dismissed, the second petition was not competent. The earlier petition was dismissed at the revisional stage by my learned brother but permission was granted to the landlord to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action which would be evident from the following concluding portion of the said judgment dated March 11, 1981 passed in C.R. No. 149 of 1980 :-

(3.) ON merits, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have recorded a concurrent finding that the respondents need the demised premises for their personal occupation and that the accommodation already in their possession was sufficient for their needs. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that a house situate in Central Town Jullundur, was on lease with late Ganga Bishen, husband of Smt. Vidyawati, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 1 was and is still residing there. No such plea was raised in the written statement. Otherwise also, even if it may be accepted that respondent No. 1 was residing in the house which was on lease with his brother, his right to get his house vacated for his personal occupation would not be affected because he, at best, can be said to be residing there as a licensee and not in his own right. No ground, therefore, has been made out to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by the authorities below and this revision is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. However, one month's time is granted to the tenant to vacate the premises. Revision dismissed.