RAVINDER KUMAR PUJARA Vs. GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under S.15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, called the Act) was referred to a Division Bench to resolve the conflict between the decision in Santokh Singh v. M/s. Sat Pal Jayanti Parshad, 1981 1 RenCR 465 and two earlier unreported judgements in Civil Revision No. 190 of 1959 (Kapur Singh v. Bhagwati Parshad) decided on Sept. 30, 1959 and Civil Revision No. 716 of 1963 (Kaura Ram v. Ram Chander) decided on Mar. 5, 1965.

(2.) The respondent-landlord filed a petition for the ejectment of his tenant, the petitioner, on various grounds, but the one which survives for consideration is as to whether the rented land was required by the former for his own use and occupation. The Rent Controller initially did not record a specific finding on this issue, but on report having been called by the appellate authority, reported that the landlord needs the rented land for the bona fide need of his son Vijay Kumar for starting coal business. This finding having been affirmed by the appellate authority and the ejectment ordered. the tenant has come up in this revision.

(3.) The principal argument raised, to assail the legality and propriety of the impugned order, was that the setting up of an independent business by the son would not be covered by S.13(3)(a)(ii) as in such a case it cannot be said that the landlord requires the rented land for his own use. In the alternative, it was contended that even if for the argument's sake it may be accepted that the need of a son, dependent on the landlord and living jointly with him, would be the requirement of the landlord himself, in the present case there being neither any pleading nor any evidence to substantiate that the son was dependent and living jointly with the landlord, the setting up of an independent business by the son cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be taken as the requirement of the landlord. Reliance for this contention was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the two unreported judgements noticed above.