SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs. JAGDISH CHAND VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the order of ejectment passed by the authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'), whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted on the ground that the demised premises bearing Property No. 3263 is required for bona fide use and occupation of the respondent for his own use as an office of an Advocate.

(2.) THE respondent herein sought ejectment of the petitioner from the property bearing No. 3263 on the ground that he has retired from the post of English Lecturer and he requires the demised premises for his personal necessity and bona fide use to start his own business. It is the case of the petitioner- tenant herein that in fact, the petitioner is owner of three other properties bearing Nos. 4173, 4174 and 4293. The landlord in replication has taken up a stand that there was a family settlement in December, 1995 and in such family settlement property bearing Nos. 4173 and 4174 have fallen to the share of his brother Hardial Chand, whereas property No. 4293 is said to be the residential house.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the plea of family settlement is only to overcome the documents, wherein the property is reflected as jointly owned by the parties. He has referred to an application made to the Municipal Committee on 11.7.1995 and sanctioning of the site plan on 10.11.1995. Said documents reflect the respondent and his brother as joint owners of the premises in dispute.