AMAR NATH Vs. MUNISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by way of present revision petition has challenged the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, Sangrur allowing the application moved by the respondent-landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act).

(2.) THE respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 13 of the Act for eviction of the petitioners from one shop. It was the case of the respondent-landlord that previously Ashok Kumar, father of the applicant was owner and landlord of the shop in dispute wherein Amar Nath and Pawan Kumar were inducted as tenants at annual rent of Rs. 2,900/-. It was claimed that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between Ashok Kumar and the petitioners. It was also claimed by the respondent that in pursuance to the oral family settlement between Ashok Kumar and his family members in the year 1996, the disputed shop was given to the respondent-landlord. The said oral family settlement was reduced into writing by way of memorandum of family settlement and thus, the respondent-landlord being the owner became the landlord of the premises qua the petitioner. The ejectment of the petitioners was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of personal necessity.

(3.) LEARNED Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent- landlord. However, issue Nos. 2 and 3 were not pressed as the petitioners tendered the rent as demanded by the respondent-landlord. However, on issue No. 4 the learned Rent Controller held that the applicant has failed to prove his bona fide need and accordingly, dismissed the application. However, in appeal finding on issue No. 4 was reversed and ejectment was ordered while finding on other issues were affirmed.