JATINDER DEV NANDA Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by Jatinder Dev Nanda (hereinafter described as 'the petitioner') directed against the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, Gurdaspur dated 15. 5. 1997. By virtue of the impugned judgment the learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner awarding two months' time to the petitioner to vacate the property.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that S. Inder Singh was an advocate. His son Rajinder Singh preferred a petition for eviction Under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') asserting that the property in dispute is a residential building. It had been let out to the petitioner vide a rent deed dated 30. 3. 1971 for residential purpose. The respondent is the son of Inder Singh. After the death of the Inder Singh, he had become the landlord of the petitioner with respect to the property in dispute. There was a family partition, as a result of which the respondent became the sole landlord. He was serving in Central Bank of India as Chief Cashier of the said bank. He was thus a specified landlord under the "provisions of the Act and was holding post in connection with the affairs of the Central Government. Be retired on 30. 11. 1991. Contending that he intends to reside in the disputed property and does not possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Gurdaspur, the petition for eviction was filed.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and both the parties were allowed opportunity to adduce the evidence. On appraisal of the evidence it was held that the property in question had been let out for residential purposes. In coming to this conclusion, reliance was placed on the rent agreement signed by the petitioner. It was held that merely because if the school is being run in the demised property will not convert it into a non residential building. The respondent was held to be a specified landlord and accordingly since he had retired, an order of eviction referred to above was passed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.