ASHOK KUMAR JAIN ADVOCATE Vs. LACHHMAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the lower Appellate Court dismissing his ejectment petition, landlord-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner)has filed this revision petition.

(2.) PETITIONER filed an application Under Section 13 of the East Punjab urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for ejectment of the tenant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') from the rented land shown red in the site plan and fully described in the head note of the application, situated in the area of Ropar District. It was alleged that the petitioner had become the owner of the rented premises shown red in the site plan by way of purchase from Dalip Dass, who was the original owner of the land. Respondent is in possession of the rented land as a tenant at the rate of Rs. 11/- per month and he had agreed to remove the malba of the construction which he had raised on the rented land. It is further ayerred that the respondent is liable to be ejected from the rented land in dispute on the grounds that the land in dispute is required bonafide for personal use and occupation by the petitioner; that the petitioner did not own or possess any other such rented land within the municipal limits of Rupnagar and that he has not vacated such land after the commencement, of the Act. Another ground taken for eviction is that the respondent did not pay or tender rent since 11. 1. 1978. Petitioner also took the ground that the respondent had sublet a part of the rented land in dispute without the consent of the petitioner, though said sub-letting is not existing at present.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: