SHAM LAL Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord petitioner by way of present revision petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority dismissing the petition filed by him under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the 'Act') seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant.

(2.) THE petitioner sought eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground that the respondent was a tenant in the shop in dispute on a monthly rent of Rs. 125/-. It was claimed that the respondent was in arrears of rent and the petitioner required the shop in dispute for his personal use and occupation. It was further claimed that the petitioner did not own or possess any other shop within the Municipal limits of Hoshiarpur nor he has vacated any shop after the commencement of the Act. It was also claimed that the petitioner was running business of Bardana in a rented shop at New Sabzi Mandi, Hoshiarpur where he was paying a monthly rent of Rs. 1,050/-. It is also averred that as per stipulation in the agreement the rent is required to be increased by Rs. 25/- per year. It was further claimed that the shop in dispute is old one and is unfit for human habitation. The whole of the roof is leaking and cracks have developed. It was also claimed that the shop requires reconstruction from top to bottom and the petitioner wants to run his business after reconstruction of the demised shop.

(3.) AFTER filing of the replication, the learned Rent Controller was pleased to frame the following issues :-