WALAITI RAM Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by a tenant whose ejectment has been ordered by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant from the premises in suit, a house in the city of Patiala on ground of non-payment of arrears of rent, subletting and personal requirement. The grounds of subletting and personal requirement were decided against the landlord, but the ejectment of the tenant was ordered on the ground of non-payment because he had not complied with the provision in section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act of 1949.

(3.) IN a case in which the application of the landlord left some doubt regarding the amount of rent which the tenant had to pay, Kundan Lal v. Beni Parshad, decided on the 25th of August 1958 Mehar Singh J. was of the opinion that the landlord must state his case with definite clarity so that the advantage which the statute gives to a tenant to escape eviction by making statutory payments should be available to the tenant and that by making vague and indefinite allegations the landlord cannot be permitted to deprive a tenant of such statutory protection. In my opinion these remarks apply to the present case in which I suspect that a deliberate trick was played by the landlord in order to mislead the tenant and gain an unfair advantage.