PAWAN KUMAR MITTAL Vs. GIRDHARI LAL SAROYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING lost the legal battle, Pawan Kumar Mittal son of Om Parkash petitioner-tenant (hereinafter to be referred as "the tenant") has directed the present revision petition challenging the impugned judgment/order dated 18.3.2006, whereby the Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition of Girdhari Lal Saroya son of Amar Chand respondent- landlord (hereinafter to be referred as "the landlord") ordering him (tenant) to hand over vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the landlord within three months and the impugned judgment/order dated 20.3.2007, vide which the Appellate Authority has dismissed his appeal as well.

(2.) EMANATING from the record and relevant for disposal of present revision petition, the brief facts are that originally, the landlord filed an ejectment petition against the tenant on the ground of personal necessity, invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), inter-alia pleading that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. But the tenant has not paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 425/- per month of the demised premises from 1.7.2000 and he (landlord) bona fide require the premises for running the business after his retirement.

(3.) LEVELLING a variety of allegations, in all, according to the landlord that he bona fide required the shop in question for construction of show room for the purpose of business after his retirement alongwith his son. He repeatedly asked the tenant to vacate the same but, in vain even, despite legal notice, which necessitated him to file the petition for ejectment. On the basis of the aforesaid ground, the landlord filed the ejectment petition in the manner indicated here-in-above.