PRITAM SINGH Vs. SATISH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated July 20, 1987 of the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur whereby he dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner-landlord, under section 13 A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short 'the Act' ). Learned Rent Controller after granting leave to the tenant to contest the petition framed a number of issues and afforded the parties an opportunity of leading evidence in support of their respective contentions. Learned Rent Controller under issue-1 returned a finding that the petitioner was a specified landlord. However, under issues 6 and 7 he came to the conclusion that the petition was barred by constructive res judicata and the petitioner failed to prove that he required the room in question for his personal use and occupation. He consequently dismissed the petition. It is in this situation, the landlord has filed the present revision.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner first submitted that the findings recorded by learned Rent Controller under issues 6 and 7 are not based on evidence and in fact there is nothing available on record to show that the petition is barred by the principle of res judicata. Learned counsel for the respondent-tenant tried to justify the findings recorded by learned Rent Controller but he could not, by reference to any evidence on record, oral or documentary, bring to my notice that the premises in question were earlier held to be a shop by learned Rent Controller in the ejectment petitions filed by the landlord. Learned counsel, however, submitted that the room in question was rented out to the respondent-tenant as a shop and the same is being used as a shop since, the inception of the tenancy and in the two petitions earlier filed by the landlord, the premises were held to be shop and, therefore, petition Under Section 13-A of the Act was not maintainable and was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submitted that learned Rent Controller again erred in returning a finding against the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner has failed to prove that the premises in question are required by him for his personal use and occupation. Learned counsel took me through the entire evidence available on record to canvass that a clear case for personal necessity was made out and the learned Rent Controller misread the evidence while coming to the contrary conclusion.