CHETAN DASS Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present revision petition challenge is to the orders made by the learned Rent Controller, Patiala and the Appellate Authority, Patiala vide which a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 filed by the respondent-landlord was allowed and the petitioner's appeal against the same was rejected by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) The petition had been filed on the ground that the petitioner-tenant who had taken a part of the residential house situated in the Main Bazar, Gurbax Colony, Patiala for the purposes of running a Dhaba had ceased to occupy the demised shop without reasonable cause prior to the filing of the petition. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner-tenant denied the allegations but stated that he along with his sons Sham Lal and Jasbir Pal were running a Dhaba and cycle repair shop in the demised premises. He denied that he had ceased to occupy the tenanted premises.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant in his statement recorded before the Rent Controller, however, admitted that Dhaba business was not being run for the last four years in the shop in question. This was for the reason that his son Jasbir Pal who was working with him was ill and suffering from paralysis. He, however, stated that now it was his son Sham Lal who was working in the shop in question for cycle repairs. He stated that the shop remained open.