JATINDER GULERIA Vs. LACHHMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court praying for setting aside the order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby the petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act'), preferred by the respondent-landlord for eviction of a hall and shed measuring 18 feet x 75 feet out of the Plot No.3 B-XXX situated at Street 1, Jiwan Nagar, Ludhiana, has been accepted on the grounds of personal necessity of the son of the respondent namely Parminder Singh, appeal against which preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, on 12.07.2016, upholding the order passed by the Rent Controller.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the basic ingredients of Sec. 13 of the Rent Act have not been pleaded as it has not been specifically mentioned that the son of the respondent does not occupy or has vacated the premises other than the one in possession of the petitioner-tenant. He has relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh and another Vs. Jit Ram and another 2008(2) RCR (Rent) 328 and the judgment of this Court in Shankar Lal Vs. Madan Lal and others 2011(1) RCR (Rent) 139. His further contention is that it has not been mentioned and so stated that he owns and possesses other properties also in Ludhiana, what has been pleaded in the eviction petition is that he does not own or possess any other commercial property. He accordingly asserts that the impugned orders passed by the authorities below cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance, have gone through the impugned orders as also the pleadings and the cross-examination which has been reproduced by him in the grounds of revision.