JANG BAHADUR SINGH BAWA Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, dated 21st January, 1992 dismissing the application of the specified landlord-petitioner filed under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the demised premises which is one room forming part of House No. 116, situated at Mohalla Harnam Dass Pura, Jalandhar. The respondent Subhash Chander was admittedly inducted as a tenant in the room in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- per month way back in the (sic) Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab. The petitioner retired on 31st March, 1990 and sought eviction of the respondent on the ground that he needed the demised premises for his personal use and occupation as the accommodation already with him in House No. 116, Harnam Dass Pura, Jalandhar was insufficient to meet the needs of the family. It was further averred that the room in question had been let out for residential purposes but after taking the same on rent the respondent had started using it for running a Karyana shop and that, too, without permission of the Rent Controller. On receipt of the notice of the application the respondent put in appearance and was granted leave to contest the same. In the written statement filed thereafter he controverted the allegations in the application and denied that the petitioner was a specified landlord or that the premises had been let out for a commercial purpose i.e. for running a shop ever since the inception of the tenancy it could not be got vacated under the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act.

(2.) ON the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

(3.) MR . Jasbir Singh, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner has raised primarily one argument before me. He has urged that the finding of the Rent Controller that the building in question had been let out for a commercial purpose from the very beginning was wrong inasmuch as there was no evidence on the record in this regard. He has also urged that the learned Rent Controller was wrong in giving a finding that the petitioner had admitted in the course of his pleading that the room in question had been let out for commercial purpose as it was based on a misreading of the application. Mr. S.K. Pruthi, learned counsel for the respondent has, however, supported the findings of the Rent Controller.