MOHAN LAL AGGARWAL Vs. ATINDER MOHAN KHOSLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Mohan Lal Aggarwal (tenant) has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the orders 24.5.2000 and 18.10.2003 passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority respectively ordering his ejectment from the premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the respondent-landlord.

(2.) EARLIER , vide order dated 2.12.2003, this revision petition was dismissed by this Court, but the Civil Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.3.2004 and the matter was remanded to this Court for deciding it afresh on merit by another Judge of this Court. Hence, this petition has been listed before this Bench.

(3.) IN this case, the premises in question, which is a big room with a toilet on the ground floor of the building, was let out to the petitioner in the month of September, 1979 on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. The petitioner is running a small scale industry in the demised premises. In the year 1996, the respondent-landlord filed the ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity of his family. The family of the respondent-landlord was consisting of his wife, two daughters and one son. It was stated that the petitioner is a patient of Angina pectoris and was under treatment. His wife was also stated to be patient of Arthritis of both the knee joints. She was advised not to go up stairs. Therefore, the petitioner and his wife intended to shift to the ground floor. It was stated that the respondent was in occupation of two rooms on the first floor and one room on the second floor. Even the said accomodation was stated to be insufficient for the family. It was stated that brother of the petitioner is Colonel and his sister is married and the respondent-landlord was having no independent room for their stay when they visit the house of the respondent.