LAWS(P&H)-2006-5-359

BALDEV RAJ Vs. RAM LAL

Decided On May 03, 2006
BALDEV RAJ Appellant
V/S
RAM LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -landlord filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, 'the Act') for ejectment of the respondent-tenant from a portion of the house, description of which was given in that application. Ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent, personal necessity and the demised premises having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was case of the petitioner that he was landlord of the demised premises in occupation of the respondent. He had got the said property from his father through a Will, to which no objection had been raised by his sister, who is the legal hair. It has further been said that he was going to retire on March 31, 1999, after attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, he intended to settle at Fazilka, where his near and dear relations were residing. He owns agricultural land near to the said place. It was stated by him that the respondent is liable to be ejected for non-payment of rent, on account of his personal necessity and also that the demised premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

(2.) IN reply to the said application, all the allegations levelled by the petitioner were controverted. It was pleaded that the ground of personal necessity put forward by the petitioner was non-existent and imaginary. Rent was tendered on the first date of hearing and on account of that the said issue had become redundant. Prayer was made for dismissal of the application for ejectment.

(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that this revision petition deserves to succeed. It is apparent from the records that in his application for ejectment, the petitioner has specifically stated that he was landlord of the demised premises and he needed the same for his own use and occupation. The Appellate Authority below has failed to negative the findings given by the Rent Controller in that regard. The relevant portion of the judgment, passed by the Rent Controller, reads thus :