RAM CHAMELI Vs. MITTAR PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders passed by the authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'), whereby the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of bona-fide use and occupation of the premises in dispute.

(2.) The landlord has sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he is working as an employee with his father in the medical store and, therefore, he requires the demised shop for carrying out his independent business.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in fact the landlord is not an employee but a partner with his father and that the landlord has first and second floors of the demised building in his possession, which can be used for the purposes of medical shop. Still further, it is argued that the father of the landlord has earlier got a tenant victed from another shop. These facts show that the landlord has sufficient accommodation in his possession for carrying out the business of medicines.