(1.) SINCE two common questions of law arise in all these three petitions for revision under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (East Punjab act No. 3 of 1949), hereinafter called "the Act" it would be convenient to dispose of all of them together by a common judgment. The first of the questions relates to the interpretation and scope of sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of Section 13 of the Act. The second question, which has been raised for the first time before us and in the nature of things could not have been raised any earlier, is as to the effect of the death of a successful landlord pending a revision petition against an order for ejectment passed in his favour on the groud of personal requirements.
(2.) THE three cases arise out of three separate applications for the ejectment filled by Bakhshi Ram (original respondent in these petitions-since deceased -and now represented by his widow and adopted son, to whom I will refer in this judgment as the landlord) against his tenants in respect of three separate plots of land originally rented out to each of them for carrying on the business of the respective tenant. Though there are some points of difference relating to the dates of commencement of the respective tenancies and some such other minor matters, all those points of difference are wholly immaterial for our purposes and it would be enough to survey the facts of the first of the three cases, i. e. , Dhan Devi V. Bakhshi Ram, Civil Revn. No. 120 of 1966, For appreciating the circumstances in which the questions in dispute have arisen.
(3.) THE application for ejectment dilled by the landlord in June 1964 against Dhan devi widow of Ajaib Singh, the original tenant, was later amended in January 1965 so as to add to the array of respondents the name of Jasbir Bedi, a daughter of ajaib Singh, in order to meet an objection raised in that behalf. The only ground on which ejectment has ultimately been ordered in this case (as also in the connected case CR 121 of 1966) was pleaded in paragraph 2 (ii) of the application for ejectment in the following words:-