SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE K.K. Sikand was the owner and landlord of the premises situated in Shastri Market, Kapurthala. Ranjit Singh, respondent-tenant (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') was sitting as a tenant on the first floor of the building in dispute. The building in dispute was sold in December, 1985 by K.K. Sikand to Subhash Chander, the present petitioner- landlord (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord').

(2.) LANDLORD filed an ejectment petition against the tenant under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') from the rented portion of the house consisting of three rooms, a kitchen, bath room and terrace, details of which have been given in the rent petition, situated in Shastri Market, Kapurthala. It was stated that Ranjit Singh was inducted as a tenant by the previous owner K.K. Sikand in the premises in dispute and that the tenant had not paid the rent to him despite oral requests. Rent claimed was at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month. Ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of personal necessity. It was stated that the landlord was married having three children and wife; that he was living in a joint ancestral house situated in Mohalla Kaserian, Kapurthala, having five residential rooms besides kitchen and bath room etc. and that the landlord had five brothers, three married sisters and mother. Out of the brothers, four including the landlord live along with the family; that the landlord with his family was living in one room which was quite insufficient for their residence; that the building in dispute was purchased by the landlord with a view to shift his residence there; that on the second floor of the building in dispute there was one room of which the tenant had taken forcible possession; that the tenancy was limited to the portion on the first floor; that the landlord was not getting any residential building in the urban area of Kapurthala except the residential room in the ancestral property in his possession and that the landlord had not vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act in the urban area. In these circumstances, ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground of arrears of rent as well as on the ground of personal necessity.

(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-