H S GORAYA Vs. NATHA SINGH CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition by the tenant -petitioner under the East Punjab Urban lent Restriction Act (hereinafter to be called the Act) against the order of the Appellate Authority. Jullundur, dismissing the appeal and affirming the order of, eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Jullundur.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that Natha Singh Chopra, respondent, submitted an application under section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the arrears of rent since January 1, 1971, had not been paid and that he needed the premises for his occupation. The tenancy was admitted by the petitioner who also tendered the arrears of rent. However, the eviction application was challenged on the ground that a valid notice as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, had not been served upon him and that the landlord did not require the premises for his bona fide needs. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

(3.) The only contention raised by Mr. Jagan Nath Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had submitted two applications during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, namely on October 28, 1972 and May 23, 1973. In his application submitted on October 28, 1972, the petitioner had contended that the landlord had already shifted to the premises where the building, in dispute, was situated and had occupied three Mianis which are as big as rooms and his needs are fully satisfied. In the second application submitted on May 23, 1973, the tenant had taken the plea that after the closure of his evidence the landlord and his son had occupied three rooms in the upper storey in the building, in dispute, alongwith kitchen, bath and verandah and a Barsati on the second floor and that he could not produce evidence regarding the above facts as that development had taken place subsequently. ' Prayer was also made in that application for permission to produce further evidence in that regard. These averments were denied by the landlord in his reply dated June 1, 1973. According to the learned counsel, no order was passed by the Rept Controller on the application submitted on May 23, 1973, nor was any opportunity affected to the petitioner to lead evidence; and though a specific plea had been taken in the grounds of appeal before the Appellate Authority, yet no finding was given on the same with the result that the petitioner has been deprived of producing evidence to establish that the landlord was in possession of sufficient accommodation which repelled his contention regarding his bona fide need for use and occupation of the building in dispute. From a perusal of the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, it is clear that no consideration had been given to that application, nor any finding had been given either by the Rent Controller or by the Appellate Authority. In the interest of justice, I directed the respondent to reply to the judgments made in the said application, to find out the truth and to arrive at the conclusion regarding bona fide need of landlord. Affidavit was filed by one Joginder Singh Chopra as general attorney of the landlord. In paragraph 5 of that reply, it has been stated :