NAURATA RAM Vs. BAGGA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the Authorities below.

(2.) THE premises, in dispute, which are a rented land, consisting of a taur and a verandah, were let out vide rent note Exhibit A.2. dated February 15, 1947. Though no specific purpose is mentioned therein for letting them out, yet it is common case of the parties, that they were let out for running a saw mill. The landlord filed the ejectment application on August 7, 1973, for the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises inter alia on the ground that he required the same for his personnal occupation bonafide. The tenant contested the application on the ground that the premises were not covered by the definition of the "rented land", as defined under section 2(f) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act). According to the tenant, the premises included a room; hence they were a non-residential building. Since the premises were let out for commercial purpose, the bonafide requirement of the landlord therefore was denied. The learned Rent Controller found that though the landlord bonafide required the premises for his use and occupation yet as they were not the "rented land", as defined under the Act, but were a non-residential building, the tenant could not be ejected therefrom on that ground. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.